CAR_Public/130823.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 167

                             Headlines


AGILYSIS INC: No California Class But Nationwide Class Approved
ALM MEDIA: Dismissal of "Giovanniello" Suit Upheld
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Coverage Denial of Eating Disorders
APPLE PARK: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Violation
AURORA IMPORTING: Recalls Perugina Chocolate Products

BARB BYNUM: Court Dismisses "Spencer" Suit
BLUE CROSS: Class Action Over Consumers' Health Plans May Proceed
BMO NESBITT: Ontario Court Certifies Overtime Class Action
BMW AG: Sued Over Navigation System in 2012 & 2013 Cars
CANADA BREAD: Recalls Certain Ben's Bread Products

CITIGROUP INC: Judge Approves $730MM Settlement With Bondholders
ECOTALITY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Attorneys Balk at Response to Motion
HALCON ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Remands Class Action to Pennsylvania Court
HALO INNOVATIONS: Recalls SleepSacks Wearable Blankets

HELZBERG'S DIAMONDS: Sued Over Short Weight on Diamonds
HERTZ CORP: Class Suit Over Fees & Taxes Filed in Cook County
JACKSON, MI: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee
KLEVER KIDS: Recalls Children's Pajamas and Nightgowns
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Order Denying Class Cert. in Abbott Suit Reversed

MCFADGENS BAKERY: Recalls Certain Mom's Brand Products
MILES INDUSTRIES: Court Okays Class Suit Settlement
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Student Athletes' Antitrust Suit Survives
SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Death of 2 Patients Unrelated to Recall
SUPEREX CANADA: Recalls 12V Ceramic Car Heater

TERRI LYNN: Recalls Deluxe Mixed Nuts on Possible Allergy
TETLEY USA: Class Suit Over Product Misbranding Dismissed
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Rejects Late Evidence of Software Bug
WESTLAND MILK: China Suspends Importation of Milk Extract
WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Chefmate Tea Kettles Due to Burn Hazard

* FTC Aims to Address Privacy Challenges of "Big Data" Companies


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Loses Bid To Stay $1B Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atlantic Richfield Faces Suit Over Health Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Had $703-Mil Current Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Increases Reserves by $130MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Unit Has $3.3MM PI Claims Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $568-Mil Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has 260 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 805 Active Cases as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon has $400.9-Mil Reinsurance at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Continues to Defend Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has $418MM PI-related Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Continues to Defend Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $6-Mil Litigation Expense

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has 66,000 Exposure Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 77,000 PI Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Has 430 PD Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 54,969 Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 432 Pending PI Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy Vets Have Highest Rates of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Companies Sued for Fibro-related Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Electrician Awarded $6MM in Exposure Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Aussie Victim Handed 'Watershed' Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bourne System Expedites Fibro Removal Projects

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Train Cleaner Dies of Fibro-Related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Center Urges Manufacturing Workers to Call
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MTV's 'Real World' Star Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Man Gets Prison for Mishandling Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wild Winds Expose Deadly Dust at Rockdale

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrin Conferences Introduces New Panel Content
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Ipswich PCYC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Center Urges Victims' Families to Call
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Says Fibro Disease 'Like Gun to Head'
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meetings Set on Coolidge School Fibro Clean Up

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concern on Demolition at Turner Brothers Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues 47 Companies Over Fibro-related Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Records Show Pa. Firm Violations Before Collapse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup to Start at Coolidge Elementary
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 City Homes Slated for Demolition After Floods

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Memorial Outing to Raise Funds for Meso Research
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Commonly Ending Up In Illegal Landfills
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supercheap Auto Fire Damage Bills Hits $5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judiciary Often Remains Roadblock to Transparency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing, Cleanup Underway at Selah School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. to Hire Second Fibro Inspector
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Lead Removal at Former Bath School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prairie Hill Landfill Fibro Ban May See End
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Storage Plan for Gorseinon Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Former Shipyard Worker's Lungs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Yorkshire Fibro Exposure Plea
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Warragul Kindergarten
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fear at Darwen Allotments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury Fibro Victim Plead for Help in Pay Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dubai Residents Fear Deadly Dust Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Dumped in Carlton
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Hit With $5.95MM Cancer Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Baucus Brings Medicare Official to Libby
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Changes Proposed to Help Victims Seeking Pay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portslade Homeowner Left Holding Fibro Pile

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Defendants Named in Fayetteville PI Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO Insurance Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants UCC's Bid to Junk "Cisler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Acevedo" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farell's Bid to Dismiss "Taveniere" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Zurich Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Not Allowed to Recover Excess Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Widow's Appeal in PI Suit v. Slakey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Meriden's Bid to Junk "Walker" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses False Claims Act Suit v. EMSL

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Allowed to Arbitrate Reinsurance Disputes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Inmates' Tort Claim Act Suits Dismissed


                             *********


AGILYSIS INC: No California Class But Nationwide Class Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge refused to certify a class of California workers for
a $1.5 million settlement with software developer Agilysis but
approved the nationwide class.

Six individuals sued the Georgia-based company in San Jose,
Calif., in July 2012.

The "installation specialists" -- Terrell Jones, Michael Johnson,
Derrick Paige, Wilfredo Betancourt, Yolanda McBrayer and Michael
Pierson -- said Agilysis misclassified them as exempt employees,
and as a result, failed to pay overtime wages as required by state
and federal laws.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2012, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of a
nationwide class and violations of the California Labor Code on
behalf of a California class.

In early 2013, the parties mediated the dispute before attorney
Mark Rudy.

Though they failed to reach a settlement at mediation, Rudy
subsequently presented a settlement proposal, which both sides
accepted in March.

Terms call for Agilysis to pay a gross settlement amount of about
$1.5 million, which would include attorneys' fees of no more than
$375,000, about $25,000 in litigation costs, class-representative
payments of up to $5,000 for each named plaintiff, $16,500 in
administration expenses to Rust Consulting Inc., and a $25,000
Private Attorney General Act payment to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency.

An estimated 131 total current and former employees may qualify
for the lawsuit. Of that number, 117 individuals are and were
employed outside of California, and 14 are and were employed in
the Golden State.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown partly certified the class on
Aug. 15.

"In the instant case, plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that
the potential collective action members were subject to the same
policy that resulted in Agilysis' failure to pay them wages to
which they were lawfully entitled under the FLSA," the eight-page
ruling states, abbreviating Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently
shown that potential collective action members in states outside
of California are 'similarly situated' within the meaning of the
FLSA for purposes of conditional certification," Brown added.

Brown nevertheless declined to certify a California class as she
did the nationwide class, citing the numerosity requirement.

"Given the small number of individuals for whom class
certification is being sought, the court finds that plaintiffs'
request to certify a California class must be rejected due to
their failure to satisfy the numerosity requirement," the ruling
states.

"In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to carry
their burden of demonstrating that conditional certification of a
California class is appropriate in this case. Although the court
has determined that conditional certification of the non-
California FLSA class is warranted, the court cannot preliminarily
approve the settlement because it is dependent upon approval of
the California class as well," Brown wrote.

Class period for the non-California class spanned July 5, 2009, to
March 4, 2013, the ruling states. The California class ran from
July 5, 2008, to March 4, 2013.

A copy of the ruling is available from Courthouse News Service at:

                       http://is.gd/KSofsc

Agilysys specializes in property management, point-of-sale and
workforce management software. The company has four central
offices in the United States, plus locations in Hong Kong,
Singapore and the United Kingdom.


ALM MEDIA: Dismissal of "Giovanniello" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
The case Earle Giovanniello, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALM Media,
LLC, Defendant-Appellee, DOCKET NO. 10-3854-CV, returned to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on remand
from the Supreme Court.

Appellant Earle Giovanniello sought review of the Second Circuit's
decision in Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, 660 F.3d 587 (2d Cir.
2011), arguing that the Court erred in concluding that Connecticut
state law dictated the statute of limitations that applies to a
claim brought in federal court under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.  The Supreme Court granted
Mr. Giovanniello's petition for certiorari, vacated the Second
Circuit's previous judgment, and remanded the case for further
consideration in light of Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC,
132 S.Ct. 740 (2012).

The Second Circuit concludes, in light of Mims, that federal law
supplies the appropriate statute of limitations -- here, four
years, see 28 U.S.C. Section 1658(a) -- rather than Connecticut
state law.  This holding, however, does not save Giovanniello's
claim because the Second Circuit joins every other circuit court
to have addressed the issue and concludes that the tolling rule
announced in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538 (1974), extends only through the denial of class status in the
first instance by the district court.  As Mr. Giovanniello
acknowledges, cutting off tolling at this point requires a
conclusion that his September 8, 2009 filing was untimely.

The Second Circuit, therefore, affirms the district court's
judgment of dismissal.

This case is the fourth attempt by Mr. Giovanniello to commence
and prosecute a putative class action under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(c), for an unsolicited fax advertisement that he
allegedly received on January 28, 2004.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 8, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/PmOwtEfrom Leagle.com.

TODD C. BANK -- TBLaw101@aol.com -- Kew Gardens, NY, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

CHAD R. BOWMAN -- cbowman@lskslaw.com -- (Elizabeth C. Koch --
ekoch@lskslaw.com -- on the brief), Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Coverage Denial of Eating Disorders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Anthem Blue Cross wrongfully
denies coverage for treatment of eating disorders, a class action
claims in Superior Court.


APPLE PARK: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Apple Park LLC, of San Francisco, announced a voluntary recall of
about 7,250 Children's two-piece loungewear sets.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The loungewear garments fail to meet children's sleepwear federal
flammability standards which require sleepwear, including
loungewear, to be either snug-fitting or flame resistant, posing a
risk of burn injuries to children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Apple Park children's 96% viscose and 4%
spandex two-piece sets from the Apple Park Bamboo Loungewear
Collection.  They were sold in children's sizes 6 months through
size 4.  The sets consist of a long-sleeve shirt paired with
matching full-length pants with elastic waistband.  The collar,
ankles and wristbands are solid-colored.  The sets come in five
animal character prints: pink "bunny," blue "cubby," white/green
"ducky," violet "lamby" and green "monkey."  "GPU CO815" is
printed on sewn labels at the pants waistline and along the
shirt's bottom right side seam.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/2MwubW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
boutiques, children's specialty stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pajamas and contact
Apple Park for a full refund.


AURORA IMPORTING: Recalls Perugina Chocolate Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 17, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aurora Importing & Distributing Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario,
                          Quebec, Manitoba, May be National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8256

Affected products:

   -- Perugina Luisa Dark Chocolate 51% Cacao 99 g. with all codes
      where milk is not declared in the list of ingredients; and

   -- Perugina Bittersweet Chocolate 70% Cacao 99 g. with all
      codes where milk is not declared in the list of ingredients.


BARB BYNUM: Court Dismisses "Spencer" Suit
------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox issued an opinion and order summarily
dismissing the complaint captioned WILLIAM SIM SPENCER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BARB BYNUM, Defendant(s), CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-
13056, (E.D. Mich.).

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Plaintiffs William Sim Spencer and Desiderio Sanchez are Michigan
prisoners confined at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in
Jackson, Michigan. The plaintiffs seek to file a joint civil
rights complaint.

The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to the
plaintiffs filing individual complaints.

Judge Cox rules, among other things, that the complaint is
deficient because Plaintiff Spencer did not file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or the required supporting
documentation.

"An additional problem with the complaint is that it appears that
the plaintiffs seek to file a class action suit in this case,"
Judge Cox said. "The Court will deny any such request by the
plaintiffs to file a class action because none of these plaintiffs
can adequately protect the interests of the class."

A copy of the District Court's August 8, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/TNUSKBfrom Leagle.com.


BLUE CROSS: Class Action Over Consumers' Health Plans May Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog on Aug. 20 disclosed that a consumer protection
lawsuit that would bar Blue Cross from changing "any term or
benefit" of consumers' health plans each month may proceed, a
Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ruled.  Judge Jane Johnson
green-lighted two class action lawsuits brought by Consumer
Watchdog and Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley LLP challenging
Blue Cross's "bait and switch" tactics, including policy fine-
print that purports to allow Blue Cross to change "any term or
benefit" of consumers' health plans each month.

Consumer Watchdog said the lawsuit is critical to ensure consumers
get the health care they paid for, especially as the deadline
looms for Californians to purchase health insurance or face tax
fines.

"In the world according to Blue Cross, consumers are required to
buy its policies, but once enrolled, Blue Cross can change the
price and take away the benefits and coverage it promised," said
Consumer Watchdog staff attorney Jerry Flanagan.  "When consumers
purchase health plans, they carefully consider the price they'll
pay and the services they'll receive.  If Blue Cross is allowed to
boost profits by reducing benefits each month, then consumers'
health plans are worthless."

The Court rejected Blue Cross's attempt to bar a claim brought by
Consumer Watchdog under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), which outlaws such bait-and-switch tactics and
unconscionable contract provisions.

The class action lawsuit contends that Blue Cross engaged in
various unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the CLRA by:

    * Increasing "annual deductibles" and other "annual" and
"yearly" out of pocket costs, thereby reducing the benefits
available under the health plan contracts, in the middle of the
year.  As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members must pay more
than promised for covered medical treatments.

    * Adopting a new contract provision purportedly allowing Blue
Cross to change "any term or benefit" of its heath service plans
each month.

    * Converting individual health service plan contracts from
annual to month-to-month in duration.  Thus, the health service
plans now terminate at the end of each month and "renew" upon
payment of the next month's premium.  As a result, consumers are
more likely to be terminated due to payments delayed by mail or
processing errors by Blue Cross.

The class action lawsuit also challenges violations of state
health laws and claims for breach of health plan contracts.

"Years ago I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I have paid big
premiums and rarely went to the doctor.  Now, Blue Cross is
dramatically increasing my premiums and reducing my coverage in
the middle of the year.  That's not fair.  If I told Blue Cross
that I decided to pay them a smaller premium in exchange for the
reduction in coverage, Blue Cross would drop me!" said
Janet Kassouf of Hayward, one of the lead plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.

Blue Cross has claimed that the mid-year changes to "annual" and
"yearly" out of pocket costs were necessary to protect consumers
from premium increases, yet Blue Cross:

    * Simultaneously increased premiums by up to 20% in 2011;

    * At the time of the changes had five times the required
amount of cash reserves (tangible net equity ["TNE"]) -- $1.2
billion in excess of state-mandated TNE -- while the company paid
$950 million in dividends to its shareholders since 2011.

The next step in the litigation is "class certification," in which
Consumer Watchdog will ask the Court to allow the lawsuits to
proceed on behalf of all affected Blue Cross customers.  At least
eleven health plans are affected by Blue Cross's bait-and-switch
tactics: PPO Share 500, PPO Share 1000, PPO Share 1500, PPO Share
2500, PPO Share 3500, PPO Share 3500-R, PPO Share 5000, PPO Share
7500, Individual HMO, Individual Select HMO, and Individual HMO
Saver.

The case, Kassouf et al. v. Anthem Blue Cross (Case No. BC473408),
and related action, Taub v. Anthem Blue Cross (Case No. BC457809),
are both pending in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil West
department 308.

Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org-- is a
non-profit and non-partisan consumer advocacy group.


BMO NESBITT: Ontario Court Certifies Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Aug. 20 disclosed that Mr. Justice Belobaba
of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class
action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. for unpaid overtime owed to
Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors.
Mr. Justice Belobaba released his reasons certifying the action on
August 20, 2013.

The class action covers over 1,500 current and former Investment
Advisors, Associate Investment Advisors and Investment Advisor
Trainees, employed by Nesbitt Burns since 2002.  Justice Belobaba
found that all three of the above employee groups were ". . .
excluded from overtime under the Nesbitt overtime policy because
they are paid in whole or in part on commission."  The plaintiff
alleges that Nesbitt Burns breached their duties to the class
members by systematically and improperly denying overtime to the
class.  The allegations have not yet been proven.  The
certification decision will allow this case to proceed as a class
action.

Yegal Rosen, a former Investment Advisor with Nesbitt Burns, has
been appointed as the lead representative plaintiff in the action.
Mr. Rosen worked as an Investment Advisor for Nesbitt Burns from
2002-2006.  During this time, Mr. Rosen never received overtime
compensation, while working between 60-80 hours per week.

This class action follows several other "off the clock" overtime
class actions by employees in the banking sector.  This is the
first "misclassification" case in this area to be certified as a
class action.

Current or former Investment Advisors and Associate Investment
Advisors who believe they may be class members should contact
class counsel.


BMW AG: Sued Over Navigation System in 2012 & 2013 Cars
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports BMW's Navigation System
Professional in 2012 and 2013 models gives wrong directions,
suddenly resets and has other problems, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


CANADA BREAD: Recalls Certain Ben's Bread Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 17, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Canada Bread Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince
                          Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8261

Affected products:

   -- Ben's Xtra White Sandwich Bread 600 g. - AU 29 2503 with UPC
      60347 71294;

   -- Ben's Xtra White Sandwich Bread 3 x 600 g. - AU 29 2503 with
      UPC 60347 78636;

   -- Ben's Xtra White Sandwich Thick Slice Bread 600 g. - AU 29
      2503 with UPC 60347 72293;

   -- Ben's Superclub White Bread 600 g. - AU 29 2503 with UPC
      60347 75296;

   -- Ben's Xtra Whole Wheat Sandwich Bread 600 g. - AU 29 2503
      with 60347 71295;

   -- Ben's Xtra Whole Wheat Sandwich Bread 3 x 600 g. - AU 29
      2503 with UPC 60347 78635;

   -- Ben's Xtra Whole Wheat Sandwich Thick Slice Bread 600 g. -
      AU 29 2503 with UPC 60347 72298; and

   -- Ben's Superclub Whole Wheat Bread 600 g. - AU 29 2503 with
      UPC 60347 75297


CITIGROUP INC: Judge Approves $730MM Settlement With Bondholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Citigroup Inc. and its lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison have secured final court approval for a $730 million
settlement with bondholders who claimed the bank misled them about
its condition during the financial crisis.  The ruling doesn't
address the lingering question of whether plaintiffs counsel at
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann will get the $146 million
they've requested in attorneys fees.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein signed off on the settlement in a
13-page decision issued on Aug. 20.  The development comes just a
few weeks after Stein approved a $590 million deal Citi inked with
shareholders over parallel claims.

The judge called the settlement fair and reasonable, even as he
noted that Bernstein Litowitz's own expert witness had pegged
damages at roughly $3 billion.  Plaintiffs counsel would have
faced several obstacles at trial, Judge Stein wrote, like
establishing liability under Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., a
2011 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
that made it extremely difficult to build a securities class
action based on a bank's statements about its goodwill and loan
loss reserves.

As The Litigation Daily noted when the settlement was first
announced in March, Bernstein Litowitz's total recovery in
post-financial crisis investor class actions is now hovering above
the $5 billion mark.

Stein has not yet ruled on the firm's $146 million attorneys fee
request, which it filed in June.  The firm plans to give part of
the money to co-counsel at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross.  By way of
comparison, Bernstein Litowitz and its co-counsel asked for $150
million when they negotiated a historic $2.4 billion class action
settlement with Bank of America Corp. last September.

Class action crusader Theodore Frank criticized Bernstein Litowitz
in a blog post for demanding 20 percent of the recovery in the
Citi case, but a scan of the court docket doesn't reveal much in
the way of formal objections.  Mr. Frank's Center for Class Action
Fairness recently succeeded in slicing a $100 million attorneys
fee request lodged by Kirby McInerney for negotiating the $590
million Citi shareholder deal.

"We and our clients are extremely pleased that the Court approved
the settlement, which we believe is an outstanding result for
investors," Bernstein Litowitz partner John Browne --
johnb@blbglaw.com -- said in a statement.

Lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom represented
underwriter defendants in the case.


ECOTALITY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Ecotality, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-03840, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Ecotality between April 16, 2012
and August 9, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ecotality securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 14, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Ecotality, engages in designing, manufacturing, testing, and
commercializing electric vehicle (EV) charging and energy storage
systems in the United States and internationally.  It primary
products include the Blink line of charging stations for passenger
vehicle applications, such as Blink Level 2 residential and
commercial chargers, and the Blink DC Fast Chargers, as well as a
turnkey network operating system for EV drivers, commercial
businesses, and utilities; and the Minit-Charger line of fast-
charge systems for off-road industrial applications, including
material handling operations and airport ground service equipment.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was facing an impeding shutdown of funds from the
United States Department of Energy ("DOE"); (2) the Company was
inappropriately recognizing revenue and drawing down expenses on
its contract with DOE; (3) the Company's products contained
significant design and manufacturing defects; (4) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and,
(5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 12, 2013, the Company disclosed that the DOE had
suspended all payments to the Company, had ordered the Company to
cease incurring new costs under its prior arrangement with DOE,
and had ordered it to notify all of Ecotality's vendors of the
DOE's action.  The Company also disclosed that it was unable to
correct design and manufacturing defects in its charging systems,
likely requiring a recall of all connector plugs on the 12,000
charging stations it had installed to date; and that as a result,
it had hired a restructuring adviser to evaluate options including
filing a bankruptcy "in the very near future."  On this news,
Ecotality securities declined $1.16 per share or over 79%, to
close at $0.35 per share on August 12, 2013.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and San Diego.


FORD MOTOR: Class Action Attorneys Balk at Response to Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
plaintiffs attorneys in three class actions filed against Ford
Motor Company say the company is attempting to punish them for
organizing a leadership team.

On Aug. 15, the plaintiffs attorneys filed their reply to Ford's
argument that it is too soon to appoint interim co-lead counsel
and a plaintiffs steering committee.  Ford contends each class
action must be before the same court before that can happen.

There are three class actions filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia in Huntington and a fourth in
South Carolina federal court.

"Ford's response to Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of Interim
Lead Counsel epitomizes the 'fox . . . [in] the chicken house'
fears that have led courts throughout the United States to
conclude that defendants lack standing to interfere in such
preliminary leadership designations . . ." the plaintiffs
attorneys wrote.

"Ignoring this established jurisprudence, Ford asks this Court to
punish Plaintiffs' counsel for avoiding contested leadership
motion practice and privately -- and prospectively -- ordering
proposed leadership in this litigation in a streamlined manner
that is in the best interests of the proposed class."

Plaintiffs attorneys submitted their motion on July 30.  It asks
that five attorneys -- including two from West Virginia -- be
appointed interim co-lead counsel.

Those two West Virginians are Timothy Bailey of Bucci, Bailey &
Javins and Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman
Thomas & Battle, both of Charleston.

They are joined in their request by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in Chicago; Stephen M.
Gorny -- steve@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson
& Gorny in Leawood, Kan.; and Mark DiCello --
madicello@dicellolaw.com -- of The DiCello Law Firm in Mentor,
Ohio.

The three lawsuits make the same allegations -- that those who
purchased Ford vehicles manufactured between 2002-10 would not
have paid as much for them or purchased them at all if they were
made aware of the sudden acceleration problems.

The vehicles at issue were manufactured between 2002 and 2010.
They were equipped with an electronic throttle control but not
adequate fail-safe systems to prevent incidents of sudden
unintended acceleration, the complaint says.

"In addition, and most significantly, regardless of the cause of
these admittedly foreseeable events, the Ford vehicles share a
common design defect in that they lack adequate fail-safe systems,
including a reliable Brake Over Accelerator system that would
allow a driver to mitigate sudden unintended acceleration by
depressing the brake," the complaints say.

"Each person who has owned or leased a Ford vehicle vulnerable to
sudden unintended acceleration during the time period relevant to
this action paid more for the Ford vehicle than they would have
paid, or would not have purchased or leased the Ford vehicle
altogether, because of the defective nature of the Ford vehicles
resulting from the absence of a fail-safe such as a BOA to prevent
sudden unintended acceleration events in each of them."

The complaints say they have also been filed before the tolling of
the statute of limitations because the plaintiffs could not have
known their vehicles were vulnerable to sudden unintended
acceleration because Ford concealed this from them.

Lincoln and Mercury vehicles from the same years are included in
the complaints.

Charleston attorney Edgar F. Heiskell III is also asking to be a
part of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

Others asking to be placed on the PSC are John T. Murray of Murray
and Murray in Sandusky, Ohio; John Scarola of Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Joseph J.
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC in Chicago;
Keith G. Bremer of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara in Newport Beach,
Calif.; E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- of The Miller
Law Firm in Rochester, Mich.; Grant L. Davis of Davis Bethune &
Jones in Kansas City, Mo.; and Gregory M. Travalio --
gtravalio@isaacwiles.com -- of Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor in
Columbus, Ohio.

Ford filed its response Aug. 8.

"Should the District of South Carolina choose to stay Thomas and
then transfer it to this Court, a motion to appoint Interim Lead
Counsel would be appropriate," Ford's response says.

"Until that time, this Court does not have power to compel any
action in Thomas; choosing 'lead counsel' in this case would only
confuse the question of who speaks for the purported class.

"In reality, no one does.  Until a class is certified, nothing in
these cases is binding on absent class members."

Ford has also filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike
what it calls "objectionable" paragraphs in the complaints.

The paragraphs Ford finds objectionable" allege that in the 1980s,
the company intentionally disposed of internal reports regarding
sudden acceleration events and that it concealed the information
from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Ford says those allegations have already been rejected by the
NHTSA and a Florida appellate court.

"Second, the allegations are simply irrelevant to Plaintiffs'
claims and, therefore, immaterial and impertinent," the memorandum
in support says.

"The allegations in the Objectionable Paragraphs are scandalous,
injurious to Ford's reputation, and have no bearing on Plaintiffs'
present claims.  The allegations are clearly designed only to
inflame the jury and the public.

"Moreover, the continued presence of these objectionable
allegations of decades-old conduct will prejudice Ford by
requiring extensive and unnecessary expenditures of resources in
litigation."

The company recently agreed to pay $17.35 million to settle an
investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency.

The NHTSA alleged Ford took too long to recall Escapes that could
have defects that cause unintended acceleration.  Ford recalled
423,000 Escapes in 2012.

Ford denied it broke any laws in the settlement agreement.


HALCON ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Remands Class Action to Pennsylvania Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded a class
action against an oil and gas company to a Pennsylvania court.

A three-judge panel of the court -- judges Marjorie Rendell, David
Brooks Smith and Patty Shwartz -- affirmed the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania's remand order.

In its ruling on Aug. 16, the Third Circuit concluded that the
Class Action Fairness Act's "home state" exception is not
applicable to the case, but said remand is warranted under the
act's "local controversy" exception.

Defendant Halcon Energy Properties Inc. had appealed the district
court's order based on the home state exception.

CAFA provides federal courts with jurisdiction over civil class
actions if the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$5,000,000," the aggregate number of proposed class members is 100
or more, and any class member is a citizen of a state different
from any defendant.

Plaintiffs Jeffry S. Vodenichar, David M. King Jr. Leigh V. King,
Joseph B. Davis, Lauren E. Davis, Grove City Country Club and
Richard Broadhead filed suit on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated landowners who sought to lease the oil and gas
rights in their land in Mercer County, Pa.

Defendants Morascyzk & Polochak and Co-eXprise, d/b/a CX-Energy,
agreed to act as the plaintiffs' agents to negotiate leases of
their oil and gas interests to energy companies under the terms of
Landowner MarketPlace Agreements, or LMAs.

In exchange for their successful marketing efforts, M&P and CX-
Energy were to be paid a "transaction fee."

M&P and CX-Energy entered into a Letter of Intent with Halcon, an
oil and gas company, pursuant to which Halcon would lease up to
60,000 acres of oil and gas rights from landowners who entered
into LMAs and who had submitted lease documents to Halcon.

Under the Halcon agreement, each landowner who executed an LMA was
guaranteed a $3,850 per acre payment plus an 18.5 percent royalty
on the net amount Halcon realized from the oil and gas recovered
from the property.

According to the plaintiffs, Halcon agreed to accept the leases
absent a title defect, an adverse environmental claim or
restrictions on the ability to explore, drill for or produce oil,
gas or hydrocarbons.

In their suit, the plaintiffs assert that Halcon rejected many of
the leases for reasons other than those permitted under the
agreement.

The company counters that the word "geology" was fraudulently
omitted from the list of grounds upon which it could decline to
lease the property, and that it was within its bargained-for
rights to reject the leases.

The plaintiffs claim that this explanation was "pretextual," as
Halcon sought to extricate itself from the lease arrangement
because it lost a bid to secure oil and gas rights in other nearby
properties, which made the leases of the plaintiffs' land less
attractive.

The plaintiffs further claim that they did not know that any words
were omitted from the agreements and if a change had been made, it
was the fault of M&P and CX-Energy.

Judge Shwartz, who authored the Third Circuit's 17-page ruling,
said Halcon, which is not a citizen of Pennsylvania, is a primary
defendant.  Thus, the home state exception is inapplicable.

However, the same representative plaintiffs filed two complaints
on behalf of an identically-defined putative class arising from
the same factual allegations.

"The question here is whether the first and second filed actions
are the same case or if the first filed action is an 'other class
action,' as contemplated under the local controversy exception,"
Judge Shwartz wrote.

In short, the Third Circuit said Halcon is defending the same case
it had been defending since November 2012, with the exception of
the addition of the other parties Halcon intended to join.

"The first filed action therefore is not an 'other class action'
as contemplated under CAFA, but rather is the same case, albeit
enlarged, and thus, the 'no other class action' prong of the local
controversy exception is satisfied," Judge Shwartz wrote.

"For these reasons, the local controversy exception to CAFA
jurisdiction mandates remand of this truly local case involving
Pennsylvania landowners and their land."


HALO INNOVATIONS: Recalls SleepSacks Wearable Blankets
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Halo Innovations, of Minnetonka, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 27,000 HALO SleepSack Wearable Blankets with Pink
Satin Flowers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Petals from the floral embellishment on the blankets can detach,
posing a choking hazard to infants.

The firm has received six reports of the petals detaching from the
blankets including one report of an infant found gagging on a
detached petal.

The recalled HALO SleepSack wearable blankets are 100% white
cotton with pink-edged ruffles and a pink satin rose embellishment
on the front.  These sack-shaped wearable blankets have cut-outs
for the baby's arms, a zipper down the center, a sewn bottom and
were sold in small and medium sizes.  Only SleepSack products with
GPU numbers 2701, 2781, 2886, 2887, 3007, 3035 and 3142 printed on
a neck label under the primary neck label are included in the
recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/vcFiYQ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Babies R Us and http://www.babiesrus.comfrom
December 2011 through July 2013 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the wearable blankets and
contact HALO Innovations for a pre-paid envelope containing
instructions to remove and return the flower and order a free
replacement product.


HELZBERG'S DIAMONDS: Sued Over Short Weight on Diamonds
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Helzberg's Diamonds, which
operates 230 jewelry stores, gives short weight on diamonds, a
class action claims in Cook County Chancery Court.


HERTZ CORP: Class Suit Over Fees & Taxes Filed in Cook County
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Hertz illegally charges "a litany
of fees and taxes . . . on top of the advertised daily or weekly
car rental rate," a class action claims in Cook County Chancery
Court.


JACKSON, MI: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Will Forgrave, writing for MLive.com, reports that the lawsuits
keep piling up for the city of Jackson.

Following a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that canceled the
city's controversial stormwater utility fee, Jackson resident
Phillip Panzica filed a class action lawsuit against the city last
week.

Mr. Panzica -- represented by attorney Brian Surgener -- is hoping
that he and others that fall under the class action's umbrella get
reimbursed their stormwater fees.

Mr. Surgener said anyone in the city who paid the stormwater fee
falls under the class action suit, including 2,500 commercial
properties.  There are nearly 15,000 parcels that were billed,
according to the suit.

Jackson officials also were sued by former interim director of the
Jackson Housing Commission Kimberly Truman Aug. 12 and another
stormwater suit is on the horizon, according to Mr. Surgener.

Ms. Truman sued the city for wrongful termination and Jackson
resident Michael Wisniewski plans to file suit against the city
for the nearly $3,000 he paid in stormwater fees.

Mr. Surgener, who sued the city in December 2011 after receiving
his stormwater bill at his business Jackson Coffee Co., filed the
class action suit in Jackson County Circuit Court on Thursday,
Aug. 15.

"(City officials) have 21 days to respond," he said.  "The problem
I have with the city waiting to tell residents whether or not they
will see a refund is that they're saving money every day they wait
to do it."

There is a one-year statute of limitation for a class action suit,
according to Mr. Surgener, so he is hoping refunds would cover
Aug. 15, 2012, to the present due to the filing date of the suit.
The city raised nearly $3 million in stormwater billings since the
fee was enacted in 2011.

Jackson City Manager Patrick Burtch said last week residents would
have to wait "about two months" before city officials decide how
and if they will present residents with refunds.

Mr. Burtch was not available on Aug. 20 for comment on the class
action filing.

"Every month they wait is another month they wouldn't have to pay
back.  We filed the class action suit to put a marker in time."

"We'll be talking about ways that we might refund the money, but
we can't do it all up front," he said last week.  "If we took it
out of general fund we'd be in dire financial straits."

In a published opinion released Aug. 2, the court ruled the city's
stormwater fee enacted in May 2011 an unconstitutional tax that
violates the Headlee Amendment.  The ruling requires the city to
pay back the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including the County of
Jackson, but not other residents or business owners within the
city.

None of the plaintiffs paid the stormwater fee, including Klein
Brothers and the Jackson Coffee Company, but they could be
reimbursed court costs.

The County of Jackson sued the city in December 2011 after
receiving a $32,000 stormwater bill before the two Jackson
businesses followed suit.

"This is critical timing for the city," Mr. Surgener said.  "Every
month they wait is another month they wouldn't have to pay back,"
he said.  "We filed the class action suit to put a marker in
time."

Mr. Surgener owns the Jackson Coffee Company and has practiced law
for 21 years, 14 of which he worked at various Lansing firms.  He
currently resides in the Lansing area.

"I hope that prolonged litigation will not be necessary, and the
city will act quickly to refund the stomwater fees wrongfully
collected over the past year," he said.

In the wake of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, the city
transferred about $240,000 remained in the stormwater fund into
the general fund before it was nixed by City Council vote Tuesday,
Aug. 13.

In addition to eliminating 15 Jackson City positions following the
court's decision, Jackson Mayor Martin Griffin announced the city
will be eliminating services such as street sweeping and leaf
pickup as well.

"In the aftermath of the court ruling . . . we must make the
difficult decision to eliminate (stormwater utility) services,"
Mr. Griffin said earlier this month, reading from a prepared
statement.


KLEVER KIDS: Recalls Children's Pajamas and Nightgowns
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Klever Kids, of Washington, D.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 7,000 Children's Pajamas and Nightgowns.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Klever Kids children's 100% Pima cotton pajama
sets and nightgowns sold in boys and girls sizes 2 through 8.  The
pajama sets include two-piece long-sleeve shirt and pant sets with
an elastic waistband and two-piece short-sleeve shirt and short
sets with an elastic waistband.  The sets were sold in multiple
prints including shark print, ballerinas, black and blue
skeletons, flowers, pink with white polka dot pattern, a two-toned
set with navy and blue striped monster print, and paisley print
with green fabric on the edge.  The nightgowns are short-sleeved
with a gathered shoulder hem.  The nightgowns were sold in
multiple prints including ballerinas, pink with white polka dots,
flowers and paisleys.  All the garments have a printed label at
the neck that reads "KleverKids live {Heart} laugh {Heart} love."
Some of the pajamas sets are labeled as "flame resistant
sleepwear" by a sewn-in garment label along the shirt's bottom
right side seam.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/fjUUOo

The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold at
children's boutiques and specialty stores nationwide from
September 2012 through March 2013 for between $32 and $82.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children, stop using them and return to the place of purchase for
a full refund.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Order Denying Class Cert. in Abbott Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ABBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION and LOCKHEED MARTIN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-3736, involves a proposed class of
plaintiffs who are participants in two defined-contribution plans
run by Lockheed Martin.  The district court declined to certify
the class in the case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reverses, concluding that, to the extent the district court had
concerns that the proposed class definition might not align with
the ultimate outcome of the case, it may have misapprehended its
authority under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(c)(1) to alter or amend
its class certification order before final judgment.

"The district court thought itself foreclosed from this option
because ruling on the class definition would not be the sort of
"inherently tentative" decision amenable to later modification.
But there is nothing more permanent about this proposed class
definition than any other.  [A]dopting Plaintiffs' class
definition in no way binds the district court when it comes time
to rule on the merits, and we cannot detect any other feature of
this class that removes it from eligibility for adaptation," the
Seventh Circuit said.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit said the order denying class
certification for the proposed "stable-value fund" class is
reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 7, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/uNggfKfrom Leagle.com.


MCFADGENS BAKERY: Recalls Certain Mom's Brand Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           McFadgens Bakery
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
                          Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward
                          Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8239

Affected products: All products where sulphites are not declared
in the list of ingredients which includes:

   -- Mom's Chewy Coconut Macaroons;
   -- Mom's Apple Cinnamon Muffins; and
   -- Mom's Apple Cinnamon Loaf Cake


MILES INDUSTRIES: Court Okays Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports a federal judge approved a class
action settlement for consumers whose homes include glass-fronted
fireplaces by Miles Industries that allegedly cause burns from
brief contact.

A copy of the Aug. 16, 2013, order is available from Courthouse
News Service at: http://is.gd/GU7j5i

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
     CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP
     1111 Exposition Blvd., Suite 602
     Sacramento, CA 95825
     Tel: (916) 204-2511
     Email: kirk@cwclawfirm.com

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     Karl Olson, Esq.
     RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
     555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 433-4949
     Fax: (415) 433-7311
     Email: mram@rocklawcal.com
            kolson@rocklawcal.com

     F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
     Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
     CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
     2131 Magnolia Avenue
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Tel: (205) 328-2200
     Fax: (205) 324-7896
     Email: jtapley@cwcd.com
     Email: rlutz@cwcd.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Student Athletes' Antitrust Suit Survives
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the third time was the charm for student athletes bringing
antitrust claims against the NCAA.

"As Schoolhouse Rock teaches, three is a magic number," U.S.
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in Indianapolis wrote in
rejecting the National Collegiate Athletic Association's attempt
to dismiss antitrust claims brought on behalf of student athletes.
The proposed class action claims that the NCAA's rules limiting
athletic scholarships create an illegal horizontal restraint under
the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act.

Judge Magnus-Stinson had dismissed the case on March 1, but
concluded on Aug. 16 that an amended complaint had successfully
defined a relevant market as required under the act. U.S.
Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue set an initial pretrial conference
for August 29.

"This is the third time that this Court has ruled on the
sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint challenging two NCAA bylaws
at issue -- the prohibition on multi-year scholarships and the cap
on the number of allowable scholarships," she wrote.  "This is the
first time, however, that the Court concludes that the complaint
at issue pleads the rough contours of a relevant market that is
plausible on its face and in which anticompetitive effects of the
challenged regulations could be felt."

Stacey Osburn, a spokeswoman for the NCAA, which is based in
Indianapolis, did not respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs lawyer Elizabeth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- a partner
in the Chicago office of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
said she drew upon a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit dismissing an earlier complaint as a guide.

"We felt the Seventh Circuit gave us clear instructions on how to
define the relevant market," she said.  "Even though it affirmed
the district court, it recognized that clearly there was a
commercial transaction involved in the purchase by the NCAA of
student athlete services and student athletes providing those
services in exchange for an education."

The Seventh Circuit on June 18, 2012, affirmed Judge Magnus-
Stinson's dismissal of a separate case brought by Hagens Berman
called Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Association after
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to plead a relevant market.
That case asserted antitrust violations based on the now-
discontinued NCAA rule that limits scholarships to one year and
another rule restricting the number and amount of scholarships
that a school can give to student athletes.

The new suit, filed a month after the Seventh Circuit's ruling,
challenged the same two NCAA rules at issue in Agnew, plus an
additional ban on scholarships to Division III schools.

The suit was filed by John Rock, who in 2008 accepted a
scholarship to play football at Gardner-Webb University in Boiling
Springs, N.C., a Division I school.  He chose the school based on
a pledge from the head coach that his scholarship would be renewed
annually as long as he kept his grades up and remained eligible
for NCAA competition.

But three years later, the school hired a new coach who told Rock
his scholarship had been revoked.  Mr. Rock ended up paying
thousands of dollars in tuition and room and board to graduate
with a political science degree last year, the suit says.

Berman later amended the complaint to include two additional
plaintiffs with similar claims who played for Division III
schools.

In dismissing the case the first time around, Judge Magnus-Stinson
said that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing.  She also
concluded that the plaintiffs, by pleading claims based on "the
nationwide market for the labor of student athletes" needed to
work harder at a "proper identification of a relevant market."

A May 24 amended complaint, relying on the Seventh Circuit's
ruling, dropped the Division III claims, and the second plaintiff,
leaving only Rock, and limited the relevant market to student
athletes in Division I football.

"In Agnew, the Seventh Circuit recognized that the relevant market
is clearly at play and focused on football players in particular,"
Ms. Fegan said.

NCAA attorney Gregory Curtner, a partner in the Ann Arbor, Mich.,
office of Schiff Hardin, had argued that Mr. Rock, who played for
a school in Division 1-AA, or Football Championship Subdivision,
could not assert claims involving its Division 1-A, now called
Football Bowl Subdivision. He also challenged the relevant market
being alleged.

Magnus-Stinson disagreed, concluding that "Mr. Rock has pled the
rough contours of a relevant market that is plausible on its
face." But she noted that the plaintiffs could struggle as they go
forward in the case.

"The Court emphasizes that these conclusions are not an
endorsement that Mr. Rock's market as pled will withstand the
higher burdens of proof that accompany summary judgment or trial,
where his factual allegations will not be accepted as true without
supporting evidence," she wrote.  "Whether Mr. Rock can gather
enough evidence to prove that the relevant market he pleads is
correct is a question for another day."


SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Death of 2 Patients Unrelated to Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Llorca, writing for Associated Press, reports that
Texas health officials say no link has been found between a
compounded drug and the death of two patients who developed blood
infections after receiving it before its recall.

The Food and Drug Administration recalled all products produced by
Specialty Compounding of Cedar Park, Texas, after reports of
bacterial infections affecting 17 patients at two Corpus Christi
hospitals.  Two of the patients died, but Chris Van Deusen,
spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, said
that the cause of death is not yet known and no link between the
medication and the deaths has been established.

Texas health officials are working with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, a federal health agency in Atlanta.  CDC
is analyzing samples of the bacteria taken from the patients to
see if they're all the same strain and come from the same source.
Results are expected this week.

Texas officials told the CDC that the patients who received
calcium gluconate manufactured by Specialty Compounding developed
bloodstream infections and that most of the infections were caused
by Rhodococcus equi, which causes illness in horses.  It's rarely
seen in people, though there have been reports of it in people
with weakened immune systems -- specifically AIDS patients.

An intact sample of the calcium gluconate made by the firm showed
growth of bacteria of the Rhodococcus species, the CDC said in a
statement.

The company has voluntarily recalled all the products it has
manufactured and distributed since May 9, however the common
treatment in all cases was calcium gluconate.  It said the
products were sent directly to patients nationwide, except in
North Carolina.  They were also distributed to Texas hospitals and
physicians.

CDC officials described calcium gluconate as a drug to help people
with low calcium levels.  That can include heart patients, cancer
patients or others.  The drug is not specifically for any
particular disease, but to bring up calcium levels and
counterbalance high levels of magnesium or potassium.

In October, hundreds of people were infected in a fungal
meningitis outbreak that was linked to contaminated steroid
injections for back pain.  The outbreak been blamed for at least
50 deaths nationwide.

Compounding pharmacies mix customized injections, creams and other
medications in formulas specified by doctors.  They have
traditionally been overseen by the 50 state boards of pharmacy
across the U.S.  But those bodies have struggled to police larger
compounding operations that have emerged in recent years,
producing medications in bulk and shipping them across state
lines.

The New England Compounding Center, the pharmacy at center of the
meningitis outbreak, shipped more than 17,600 doses of the pain
injection implicated in the case.

Dr. Carmen Catizone, the director of the National Association of
Boards of Pharmacy told Senate lawmakers last May that these large
compounders are essentially manufacturers, and should be regulated
by the Food and Drug Administration.

A Senate proposal, drafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers,
calls these operations "compounding manufacturers," and requires
them to register with FDA and meet the same quality control
standards as pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly
& Co.  Traditional compounding pharmacies, generally small
operations that work with individual doctors, would continue to be
regulated by state pharmacy boards.

Since 2001, there have been 75 reported deaths and more than 1,020
illnesses connected with compounded drugs, according to an
assessment released by the Pew Charitable Trusts at the hearing.


SUPEREX CANADA: Recalls 12V Ceramic Car Heater
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 21, 2013
Posting date:             August 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35125

Affected products: Superex 12V Ceramic Car Heater

The recall involves the Superex 12V Car Heater with model number
21-144 with any date code labeled on the back of the heater.  The
product is used to warm the interior of a car.  The heater
contains a heater and fan in a black housing, with a plug attached
to a cord that is inserted into the lighter socket.  An in-line
fuse is included along the wiring by the lighter socket plug.

The car heater can draw an excessive amount of current from the
vehicle, which may cause the fuse to overheat, posing a fire
hazard.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/8ddAhi

Superex Canada Ltd. and Health Canada have received one report of
a fire causing minor damage to the vehicle and burns to the user.

Approximately 67,908 units of the affected heaters were sold
through various retailers across Canada.

The affected heaters were manufactured in China and sold between
2007 and 2013.

Companies

   Manufacturer     Autotek Products Ltd.
                    China

   Distributor      Superex Canada Ltd.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada


TERRI LYNN: Recalls Deluxe Mixed Nuts on Possible Allergy
---------------------------------------------------------
Terri Lynn, Inc. of Elgin, IL, is recalling 855 packages of its
Deluxe Mixed Nuts because it may contain undeclared peanuts.
People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Deluxe Mixed Nuts were shipped to various customers
of Terri Lynn, Inc. in the United States only; Ill., Ind., Ga.,
Oh., W.Va., Md., Wi., Fla., Ct., Mi., Ky., Tn., Neb., Ok., N.J.,
and Alaska. This product was also sold through its outlet store
located in Elgin, Illinois.

The product was sold in 16 ounce Terri Lynn Green Fund Raising
Bags described as Deluxe Mixed Nuts No Peanuts with lot code 3180
located on the front of the bag and 12 ounce Terri Lynn Blue bags
described as Deluxe Mixed Nuts with Macadamias with a best buy
date of 12/29/14 on the back of the bag.  Pictures of the Products
are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm365751.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after peanuts were discovered in a bag of
Deluxe Mixed Nuts which does not reveal the presence of peanuts.
Terri Lynn's investigation has not uncovered any additional bags
with this problem, but this recall is being done to ensure the
safety of its customers.

Customers are requested to return any bags they may have for a
full refund or replacement.  Contact Terri Lynn, Inc. immediately
at 800-323-0775, Monday thru Friday, 8:00A.M. to 4:30P.M.  Central
time to obtain your Return Authorization instructions and to
answer any additional questions you may have.


TETLEY USA: Class Suit Over Product Misbranding Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Tetley USA persuaded a federal
judge to dismiss a putative class action accusing it of
misbranding its tea products by making misleading health claims.

The case was brought before the United States District Court
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, by Daryl De
Keczer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against Tetley USA, Inc., Defendant, Case
No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD.

A copy of the dismissal order signed by United States District
Judge Edward J. Davila on Aug. 16, 2013, is available from
Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/wza1YR


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Rejects Late Evidence of Software Bug
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has tentatively granted Toyota's request to
strike recent evidence from a plaintiff's software expert who
claims to have identified a bug in the electronic throttle control
system's source code responsible for unintended acceleration
defects in its vehicles.

U.S. District Judge James Selna, who heard arguments on the
request on Aug. 20, found that the report, served this month, came
four months after the deadline and following the close of expert
discovery in the case.

"The umbrella term 'software defects' cannot be used to inject
into the litigation an entirely new defect at this late date," he
wrote.  "The record seems clear that Plaintiffs' software experts
continued to review source code after their deadlines and found
additional evidence to formulate new opinions.  Although these
strengthen Plaintiffs' litigation position, that alone does not
justify denying the Motion to Strike."

Carly Schaffner, a spokeswoman for Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., in
an emailed statement to The National Law Journal, wrote: "We are
pleased that the Court agreed that plaintiff's counsel cannot
introduce new and untested defect theories at this late date,
nearly a month after the close of expert discovery.  After nearly
three years of litigating this case, plaintiff's experts still
have no viable software defect theory and have never replicated
unintended acceleration in a Toyota vehicle."

Michael Barr, who specializes in embedded software programming,
was deposed on July 3 as an expert for the estate of Ida St. John,
83, who suffered back injuries after her 2005 Camry accelerated
while at a stop sign.  The case, scheduled to go to trial on
November 5, is the first bellwether to go before jurors from among
hundreds of cases pending in multidistrict litigation in federal
court in Santa Ana, Calif.

Toyota attorney Joel Smith, managing partner of the Columbia,
S.C., office of Bowman and Brooke, moved on August 9 to strike
Mr. Barr's report, arguing that plaintiffs attorneys were merely
attempting to improperly assert a new defect theory.  Plaintiffs
attorney Todd Walburg -- twalburg@lchb.com -- a partner at San
Francisco's Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, in an August 14
response, insisted that Barr was merely supplementing his own
testimony and that of another expert.

The case alleges that Ms. St. John's vehicle accelerated on
April 15, 2009, while at a stop sign in Columbus, Ga. St. John
allegedly hit the brakes, but the car sped toward an elementary
school, where it crashed into the gymnasium.  Ms. St. John died
last year.


WESTLAND MILK: China Suspends Importation of Milk Extract
---------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Burkitt, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Chinese authorities suspended and seized imports of milk powder
from a New Zealand cooperative after the producer said some of its
shipments to China were contaminated.  It was the latest blow to
the image of New Zealand dairy products in a critical market.

China's product-safety agency said on Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013, that
it is calling for additional quality tests of Westland Milk
Products' milk protein lactoferrin.  The General Administration of
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said it seized 390
kilograms, or 860 pounds, of the protein, a milk extract used in
products such as infant formula.

A spokesman for Westland said the company supports the Chinese
authorities' decision and expects that sales will return to normal
after the problem lactoferrin batches are cleared.

Westland's chief executive said Monday that 390 kilograms of
lactoferrin shipped to China contained higher-than-normal nitrate
levels.  Excess nitrate can impair delivery of oxygen in blood.

The Chinese agency said Tuesday, Aug. 20, that it will require all
New Zealand companies supplying China with lactoferrin to provide
nitrate-test reports to ensure consumer safety.

New Zealand, a major dairy supplier to China, has been under
heightened scrutiny in China in recent weeks.  The country's
largest milk-powder exporter, Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd.,
said earlier this month that some infant formula ingredients it
exported to China contained potentially hazardous bacteria.
Fonterra recalled products and apologized to Chinese consumers for
the problem.

                           *     *     *

The Associated Press reports that China's product safety agency
has told New Zealand suppliers of a milk product to perform
additional quality tests following a new contamination problem.

The agency said on Aug. 20 it has impounded 390 kilograms (860
pounds) of lactoferrin powder supplied by Westland Milk Products
Co. after the company said it found high levels of nitrate in the
food supplement.

Westland said cleaning products containing nitrates were not
properly flushed from its factory.

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and
Quarantine said all New Zealand suppliers of lactoferrin must test
it for nitrate and Westland must test all its products.

New Zealand milk has faced heightened scrutiny in China after
supplier Fonterra found bacteria that can cause botulism in its
baby formula ingredients.


WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Chefmate Tea Kettles Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wilton Industries Inc., Woodridge, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 716,000 in the United States and 1,400 in Canada
Chefmate 2-Quart Tea Kettles.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Steam can travel up the handle, or water can spill from the spout,
posing a burn hazard to the consumer.  In addition, the leaking
steam can cause the kettle to fail to whistle.  If water
completely evaporates from the kettle, the aluminum bottom can
melt onto the stove and pose a burn hazard.

The firm has received 13 reports of incidents, including five
reports of steam traveling up the handle, three reports of hot
water spilling from the spout and a report of a hot handle.  In
addition, four consumers reported the tea kettle base melting onto
the stove burner. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Chefmate 2-quart tea kettles sold with a black
enamel finish and a solid black resin handle.  The Chefmate logo
is stamped on the bottom of the aluminum tea kettle.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/NMXoz6

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and China and
sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and online at
Target.com from January 2006 through May 2013 for about $9.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tea kettles
and return them to any Target store, or contact Wilton Industries
for a full refund.


* FTC Aims to Address Privacy Challenges of "Big Data" Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez on Aug. 19
issued a stern warning to U.S. companies that house vast amounts
of consumers' personal data: Watch out.

Speaking at the Technology Policy Institute's annual conference in
Aspen, Colo., Ms. Ramirez said the FTC is keeping a close eye on
"big data" companies, and is ready to take action when consumer
privacy is under threat.

"The FTC recognizes that the effective use of big data has the
potential to unleash a new wave of productivity and growth,"
Ms. Ramirez said in her prepared remarks.  "Like the lifeguard at
the beach, though, the FTC will remain vigilant to ensure that
while innovation pushes forward, consumer privacy is not engulfed
by that wave."

Ms. Ramirez pointed to privacy suits the FTC brought against
Google Inc., Facebook Inc., and others during the past few years.

In 2012, Google reached a record $22.5 million settlement with the
FTC to resolve charges that it misled users of Apple Inc.'s Safari
web browser into believing that it wouldn't put tracking cookies
on their computers.  Facebook last year also agreed to settle
charges that it misled its users about their privacy, saying they
could keep their information private.  The social media giant
didn't pay a penalty, but the FTC required the company to have
biennial privacy audits and take other steps intended to protect
users' privacy.

Additionally, the FTC plans to release a report this year about
"data brokers," which gather consumer information to develop
meticulous profiles of individuals, Ms. Ramirez said.

And she said the agency is looking to do more.

The FTC is pushing Congress for the power to secure civil
penalties against businesses that "fail to maintain reasonable
security," Ms. Ramirez said.  The agency also is urging Congress
to pass "baseline privacy legislation" that would increase
transparency about companies' collection of user information,
among other goals, she added.

"Addressing the privacy challenges of big data is first and
foremost the responsibility of those collecting and using consumer
information," Ms. Ramirez said.  "The time has come for businesses
to move their data collection and use practices out of the shadows
and into the sunlight.  But the FTC has a critical role to play as
well."


                         Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Loses Bid To Stay $1B Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Specialty Products Holding Corp. lost its bid
to stay a Delaware bankruptcy court's decision pegging its
asbestos-related liability at $1.1 billion while it attempts to
appeal the ruling directly to the Third Circuit.

According to the report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh
denied Specialty Products' motion to hold off on that
determination or at least to suspend any proceedings based on it,
rebuffing arguments that Specialty Products would likely succeed
with its "substantial and strong" appeal.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Specialty Products Holdings Corp., aka RPM,
Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International Inc.  The
Company is the holding company parent of Bondex International,
Inc., and the direct or indirect parent of certain additional
domestic and foreign subsidiaries.  The Company claims to be a
leading manufacturer, distributor and seller of various specialty
chemical product lines, including exterior insulating finishing
systems, powder coatings, fluorescent colorants and pigments,
cleaning and protection products, fuel additives, wood treatments
and coatings and sealants, in both the industrial and consumer
markets.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 10-11780) on May 31, 2010.  Gregory M. Gordon, Esq.,
Dan B. Prieto, Esq., and Robert J. Jud, Esq., at Jones Day, serve
as bankruptcy counsel.  Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., and Zachary
I. Shapiro, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger, serve as co-
counsel.  Logan and Company is the Company's claims and notice
agent.  The Company estimated its assets and debts at $100 million
to $500 million.

The Company's affiliate, Bondex International, Inc., filed a
separate Chapter 11 petition on May 31, 2010 (Case No. 10-11779),
estimating its assets and debts at $100 million to $500 million.

On May 20, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order estimating
the amount of the Debtors' asbestos liabilities, and a related
memorandum opinion in support of the estimation order.  The
Bankruptcy Court estimated the current and future asbestos claims
associated with Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty Products
Holding at approximately $1.17 billion.  The estimation hearing
represents one step in the legal process in helping to determine
the amount of potential funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atlantic Richfield Faces Suit Over Health Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that one Harris County resident and two Orange County residents
have filed an asbestos suit against four defendant corporations,
claiming the asbestos-related disease with which a man was
diagnosed was wrongfully caused.

Audrey J. Hawkins, Terri Banken and Gina Daigle claim Floyd
Hawkins was diagnosed with lung cancer after being exposed to
large amounts of asbestos in products manufactured, sold,
designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled, relabeled, resold,
processed, applied or installed by the defendant companies.

Defending companies named in the complaint are Atlantic Richfield
Co., Beazer East Inc., Certainteed Corp. and Guard-Line Inc.

The plaintiffs allege Floyd Hawkins's disease was caused because
he inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers while
at work.  They claim he did not know of the hazards of asbestos
exposure, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs state the defendants failed to adequately warn
Floyd Hawkins of the serious health hazards related to asbestos
exposure and failed to provide him with what would be considered
adequate and safe working apparel.

In addition, the defending companies failed to provide Floyd
Hawkins with a safe workplace, allowed a dangerous condition to
exist, failed to warn Floyd Hawkins of the hazardous condition and
to warn him that asbestos particles could lead to disease and
failed to market asbestos products that were safe to use,
according to the complaint.

The defendants negligently failed to test their products before
they were released into the stream of commerce; failed to place
warning labels on the asbestos products; failed to warn Floyd
Hawkins on the proper way to handle asbestos products; failed to
enforce a safety plan; and failed to follow government
regulations, the suit states.

Because of his disease, Floyd Hawkins experienced physical pain,
suffering and mental anguish; endured emotional distress and
physical impairment; and incurred medical costs, the complaint
says.

After Floyd Hawkins's death, his children claim they lost his
care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel and
reasonable contributions and suffered mental anguish.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking general, punitive,
special and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest and other relief to which they may be entitled.

They will be represented by Tina H. Bradley --
tbradley@hobsonlaw.com -- of Hobson & Bradley in Beaumont.

The case has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District
Court.

Case No. B194-570


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Had $703-Mil Current Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under a 2009 settlement arrangement among PPG Industries, Inc.,
certain insurance carriers, the official committee representing
asbestos claimants in Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, $703 million
is reported as a current liability, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of
PPG's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that
PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing
thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC"). PPG and
Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. PPG
has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for
any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order
which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against PPG, PPG was one
of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving
approximately 114,000 claims served on PPG. During the period of
the stay, PPG generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if
any, of these asbestos claims.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located
in Pittsburgh, Pa.

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

PPG's obligation under the 2009 Settlement Arrangement was $162
million less than the amount that would have been due under the
2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This reduction is attributable to
a number of negotiated provisions in the 2009 PPG Settlement
Arrangement, including the provisions relating to the channeling
injunction under which PPG retains liability for any non-PC
Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such amount as a reserve for
asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust,
as this amount represents PPG's best estimate of its liability for
these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim
information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability, in light of the fact that the
Bankruptcy Court's stay has been in effect since 2000. As a
result, PPG's reserve at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 for
asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust is
$162 million. This amount is included within "Other liabilities"
on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In addition,
under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will retain for its
own account rights to recover proceeds from certain historical
insurance assets, including policies issued by non-participating
insurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would have been
assigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG Settlement
Arrangement.

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

Of the total obligation of $942 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at June 30, 2013, $703 million is reported
as a current liability and the present value of the payments due
in the years 2014 to 2023 totaling $239 million is reported as a
non-current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion of
the liability will total $102 million and be reported as expense
in the condensed consolidated statement of income over the period
through 2023.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Increases Reserves by $130MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., increased its net asbestos
reserves by $130 million based on its annual ground-up asbestos
reserve evaluation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2013.

For paid and incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses
reporting, the Company classifies its asbestos and environmental
reserves into three categories: Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and
London Market. Direct insurance includes primary and excess
coverage. Assumed reinsurance includes both "treaty" reinsurance
(covering broad categories of claims or blocks of business) and
"facultative" reinsurance (covering specific risks or individual
policies of primary or excess insurance companies). London Market
business includes the business written by one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, which are no longer
active in the insurance or reinsurance business. Such business
includes both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance.

Of the three categories of claims (Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and
London Market), direct policies tend to have the greatest factual
development from which to estimate the Company's exposures.

Assumed reinsurance exposures are inherently less predictable than
direct insurance exposures because the Company may not receive
notice of a reinsurance claim until the underlying direct
insurance claim is mature. This causes a delay in the receipt of
information at the reinsurer level and adds to the uncertainty of
estimating related reserves.

London Market exposures are the most uncertain of the three
categories of claims. As a participant in the London Market
(comprised of both Lloyd's of London and London Market companies),
certain subsidiaries of the Company wrote business on a
subscription basis, with those subsidiaries' involvement being
limited to a relatively small percentage of a total contract
placement. Claims are reported, via a broker, to the "lead"
underwriter and, once agreed to, are presented to the following
markets for concurrence. This reporting and claim agreement
process makes estimating liabilities for this business the most
uncertain of the three categories of claims.

During the second quarter of 2013, the Company completed its
annual ground-up asbestos reserve evaluation. As part of this
evaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domestic
insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability, as well as
assumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures for
both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance. Based on this
evaluation, the Company increased its net asbestos reserves by
$130 million. The Company found estimates for individual cases
changed based upon the particular circumstances of such accounts.
These changes were case specific and not as a result of any
underlying change in the current environment. The Company
experienced moderate increases in claim frequency and severity as
well as expense and costs associated with litigating asbestos
coverage matters, particularly against certain smaller, more
peripheral insureds. The Company also experienced unfavorable
development on certain of its assumed reinsurance accounts driven
largely by the same factors experienced by the direct
policyholders. The Company currently expects to continue to
perform an evaluation of its asbestos liabilities annually.

During the second quarter of 2013, the Company completed its
annual ground-up environmental reserve evaluation. As part of this
evaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domestic
insurance accounts exposed to environmental liability, as well as
assumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures for
both direct and assumed reinsurance. Based on this evaluation, the
Company increased its net environmental reserves by $10. The
Company found estimates for certain individual account exposures
increased based upon unfavorable litigation results and increased
clean-up or expense costs. The Company currently expects to
continue to perform a ground-up evaluation of its environmental
liabilities annually and regularly evaluate the Company's
historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported
experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience
by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends,
fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid
and reported activity.

The Company divides its gross asbestos and environmental exposures
into Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and London Market. Direct
asbestos exposures include Major Asbestos Defendants, Non-Major
Accounts, and Unallocated Direct Accounts.

* Major Asbestos Defendants represent the "Top 70" accounts in
Tillinghast's published Tiers 1 and 2 and Wellington accounts.
Major Asbestos Defendants have the fewest number of asbestos
accounts and include reserves related to PPG Industries, Inc.
("PPG"). In January 2009, the Company, along with approximately
three dozen other insurers, entered into a modified agreement in
principle with PPG to resolve the Company's coverage obligations
for all its PPG asbestos liabilities. The agreement is contingent
on the fulfillment of certain conditions. Major Asbestos
Defendants gross asbestos reserves account for approximately 29%
of the Company's total Direct gross asbestos reserves as of June
30, 2013.

* Non-Major Accounts are all other open direct asbestos accounts
and largely represent smaller and more peripheral defendants.
These exposures represent 1,125 accounts and contain approximately
44% of the Company's total Direct gross asbestos reserves as of
June 30, 2013.

* Unallocated Direct Accounts includes an estimate of the reserves
necessary for asbestos claims related to direct insureds that have
not previously tendered asbestos claims to the Company and
exposures related to liability claims that may not be subject to
an aggregate limit under the applicable policies.

A number of factors affect the variability of estimates for
asbestos and environmental reserves including assumptions with
respect to the frequency of claims, the average severity of those
claims settled with payment, the dismissal rate of claims with no
payment and the expense to indemnity ratio. The uncertainty with
respect to the underlying reserve assumptions for asbestos and
environmental adds a greater degree of variability to these
reserve estimates than reserve estimates for more traditional
exposures. While this variability is reflected in part in the size
of the range of reserves developed by the Company, that range may
still not be indicative of the potential variance between the
ultimate outcome and the recorded reserves. The recorded net
reserves as of June 30, 2013, of $2.1 billion ($1.82 billion and
$296 for asbestos and environmental, respectively) is within an
estimated range, unadjusted for covariance, of $1.7 billion to
$2.5 billion. The process of estimating asbestos and environmental
reserves remains subject to a wide variety of uncertainties.  The
Company believes that its current asbestos and environmental
reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developments
could cause the Company to change its estimates and ranges of its
asbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of these
changes could be material to the Company's consolidated operating
results and liquidity.

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

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., formerly The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., is an insurance and financial
services company. The Company is a provider of investment products
and life, property, and casualty insurance to both individual and
business customers in the United States of America. The Company
maintains a retail mutual fund operation, whereby the Company,
through wholly owned subsidiaries, provides investment management
and administrative services to The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc. and
The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc. (collectively, mutual funds),
consisting of 57 mutual funds, as of December 31, 2011. The
Company operates in four segments: Commercial Markets, Consumer
Markets, Wealth Management and Runoff Operations. In October 2011,
the Company sold Trumbull Services, LLC to ExlService Holdings,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Unit Has $3.3MM PI Claims Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation, which sold asbestos-
containing products, projects to incur approximately $3,300,000 in
total asbestos personal injury claims liability over the next 50
years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $3,300,000 (excluding
costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a
defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively
pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed
to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against
the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all
defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against
the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims
up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion
of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that
is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted
that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.
The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for
$15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice. As of June 30, 2013, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the
term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue
its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the
policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage
issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless,
liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and
coverage available to the subsidiary.

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

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. In July 2012, the Company acquired NP Coil Dexter
Industries S.r.l.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $568-Mil Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future asbestos claims was $568 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the Corporation's review of 2013 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June
30, 2013. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $568 million at June 30, 2013. Approximately
17 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 83 percent related to future claims.

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

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

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was $25 million at June 30, 2013 and $25
million at December 31, 2012. At June 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related
to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement
and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage.

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

As of June 30, 2013, the Company's total receivable for asbestos-
related costs was $176 million.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $29
million for the second quarter of 2013 ($23 million in the second
quarter of 2012), $51 million for the first six months of 2013
($48 million for the first six months of 2012) and was included in
"Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of operations.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of uncertainties, the Corporation's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. The
Corporation's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position
of the Corporation.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty
the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims,
management believes that adequate provisions have been made for
probable losses with respect to pending claims and proceedings,
and that, except for the asbestos-related matters, the ultimate
outcome of all known and future claims, after provisions for
insurance, will not have a material adverse impact on the results
of operations, cash flows and financial position of the
Corporation. Should any losses be sustained in connection with any
of such legal proceedings and claims in excess of provisions
provided and available insurance, they will be charged to income
when determinable.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has 260 Pending Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, has 260 asbestos cases that were not
settled and dismissed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2013.

Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on February
20, 2003, to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of Midwest
Generation's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under
the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale
Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation
agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for
50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and
related expenses less recovery of insurance costs and agreed to a
sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with
future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. The
obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum
liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year
term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year
terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate);
pursuant to the automatic renewal provision, the supplemental
agreement has been extended until February 2014. There were
approximately 260 cases for which Midwest Generation was
potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at June
30, 2013. Midwest Generation had $53 million recorded in LSTC at
June 30, 2013 related to this contractual indemnity.

Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in
the Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating
capacity of almost 5,480 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired
power plants in Illinois (5,172 MW); it also oversees the
operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which
have 305 MW of capacity. Affiliate Edison Mission Marketing and
Trading acts as a conduit for Midwest Generation's wholesale
energy activities. Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison
International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co. In 2010
regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection accounted
for 79% of the company's revenues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 805 Active Cases as of June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately
805 active asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2013

As of June 30, 2013, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
805 active cases involving approximately 3,345 plaintiffs. Many of
these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from fifty to
more than one hundred). About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent,
of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions
which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based
upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the
actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against
U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs. During the six months ended June 30, 2013, U. S. Steel
paid approximately $5 million in settlements. These settlements
and other dispositions resolved approximately 110 claims. New case
filings in the first six months of 2013 added approximately 125
claims. At December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a defendant in
approximately 790 active cases involving approximately 3,330
plaintiffs. During 2012, U. S. Steel paid approximately $15
million in settlements. These settlements and other dispositions
resolved approximately 190 claims. New case filings in the year
ended December 31, 2012 added approximately 285 claims. Most
claims filed in 2013 and 2012 involved individual or small groups
of claimants as many jurisdictions no longer permit the filing of
mass complaints.

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

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

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

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

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

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) produces and sells
steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular products,
in North America and Europe. Operations in North America also
include iron ore and coke production facilities, transportation
services (railroad and barge operations) and real estate
operations. U.S. Steel has three reportable operating segments:
Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) and
Tubular Products (Tubular). An integrated producer uses iron ore
and coke as primary raw materials for steel production. U. S.
Steel has annual raw steel production capability of 31.7 million
net tons (tons) (24.3 million tons in North America and 7.4
million tons in Europe). On January 31, 2012, it sold U. S. Steel
Serbia d.o.o. (USSS). On February 1, 2012, U. S. Steel completed
the sale of the majority of the operating assets of Birmingham
Southern Railroad Company, as well as the Port Birmingham
Terminal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon has $400.9-Mil Reinsurance at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., has $400.9 million of reinsurance
recoverable on unpaid losses outstanding under an adverse loss
reserve development cover from General Reinsurance Corporation
Cover, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, OneBeacon has $400.9 million of reinsurance
recoverable on unpaid losses outstanding under the GRC Cover.

OneBeacon's reserves include provisions made for claims that
assert damages from Asbestos and Environmental related exposures.
These reserves have been reclassified to liabilities held for sale
as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, as they are part of the
run-off business.  OneBeacon's insurance subsidiaries seek to
limit losses that may arise from catastrophes or other events by
reinsuring with third-party reinsurers. OneBeacon remains liable
for risks reinsured even if the reinsurer does not honor its
obligations under reinsurance contracts.

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

Under the terms of the NICO Cover, NICO receives the economic
benefit of reinsurance recoverables from certain of OneBeacon's
third party reinsurers ("Third Party Reinsurers") in existence at
the time the NICO Cover was executed ("Third Party Recoverables").
As a result, the underlying Third Party Recoverables serve to
protect the $2.5 billion limit of NICO coverage for the benefit of
OneBeacon. OneBeacon estimates that on an incurred basis it has
used approximately $2.3 billion of the coverage provided by NICO
at June 30, 2013. Net losses paid totaled approximately $1.6
billion as of June 30, 2013. To the extent that actual experience
differs from OneBeacon's estimate of ultimate A&E losses and Third
Party Recoverables, future losses could exceed the $198.3 million
of protection remaining under the NICO Cover at June 30, 2013.

Pursuant to the GRC Cover, OneBeacon is not entitled to recover
losses to the full contract limit if such losses are reimbursed by
GRC more quickly than anticipated at the time the contract was
signed. OneBeacon intends to seek reimbursement from GRC only for
claims which result in payment patterns similar to those
supporting its recoverables recorded pursuant to the GRC Cover.
The economic cost of not submitting certain other eligible claims
to GRC is primarily the investment spread between the rate
credited by GRC and the rate achieved by OneBeacon on its own
investments. This cost, if any, is expected to be nominal.
OneBeacon has ceded estimated incurred losses of $562.0 million to
GRC under the GRC Cover. As of June 30, 2013, OneBeacon has $400.9
million of reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses outstanding
under the GRC Cover.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. (OneBeacon) through its
subsidiaries is a specialty property and casualty insurance writer
that offers a range of insurance products through independent
agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers and managing
general agencies. The Company's products relate to professional
liability, marine, energy, entertainment, sports and leisure,
excess property, environmental, group accident, property and
inland marine, public entities, technology, surety, and tuition
refund. The Company operates in two segments: Specialty Products,
Specialty Industries, and Investing, Financing and Corporate. In
February 2012, the Company sold its AutoOne Insurance business
(AutoOne) to Interboro Holdings, Inc. (Interboro). In January
2013, the Company sold Essentia Insurance Company to Markel Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend itself against lawsuits by
approximately 100 plaintiffs alleging personal injury or death due
to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2013

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Continues to Defend PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013,

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

FMC Corporation (FMC), is a diversified chemical company. FMC
serves agricultural, consumer and industrial markets with
solutions, applications and products. It operates in three
business segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and
Industrial Chemicals. Agricultural Products segment develops,
markets and sells all three classes of crop protection chemicals,
such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, with particular
strength in insecticides and herbicides. Specialty Chemicals
consists of its BioPolymer and lithium businesses and focuses on
food ingredients that are used to enhance texture, color,
structure and physical stability; pharmaceutical additives for
binding, encapsulation and disintegrant applications, specialty
polymers and pharmaceutical synthesis. In July 2013, it acquired
rights to crop protection product from Bayer CropScience. In July
2013, it acquired Epax Nutra Holding III AS (Norway) and Epax UK
Holding III AS (United Kingdom) (together, Epax).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has $418MM PI-related Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's accrued asbestos-related
liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by
the Company and its insurers totaled approximately $418 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We have recorded liabilities totaling $311
million and $298 million, including related legal fees expected to
be incurred, for potential product liability and other tort
claims, including asbestos claims, presently asserted against us
at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Of these
amounts, $44 million and $40 million were included in Other
Current Liabilities at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. The amounts recorded were estimated based on an
assessment of potential liability using an analysis of available
information with respect to pending claims, historical experience
and, where available, recent and current trends. Based upon that
assessment, at June 30, 2013, we do not believe that estimated
reasonably possible losses associated with general and product
liability claims in excess of the amounts recorded will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or
results of operations. However, the amount of our ultimate
liability in respect of these matters may differ from these
estimates.

We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-
related personal injuries purported to result from alleged
exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or
present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits
have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal
courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 106,400 claims
by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering
into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related
liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us
and our insurers totaled approximately $418 million through June
30, 2013 and $407 million through December 31, 2012.

We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $140 million and $139
million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $74 million
and $73 million as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim
related losses will be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $11 million and $10 million was included in Current
Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively. The recorded receivable consists
of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place
agreements with certain primary carriers as well as an amount we
believe is probable of recovery from certain of our excess
coverage insurance carriers.

We believe that, at June 30, 2013, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement.

With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company operated
approximately 1,400 tire and auto service center outlets where it
offered its products for retail sale and provided automotive
repair and other services. The Company manufactures its products
in 53 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries, including the
United States. It operates through four operating segments
representing its regional tire businesses: North American Tire;
Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA); Latin American Tire,
and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Pending Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,400 pending claims
alleging exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through June 30, 2013, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,300 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,400 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through June 30, 2013, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately one thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that
any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect
on our future results of operations, financial position or cash
flow, and, at June 30, 2013, we had approximately $2,500 accrued
for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted
asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential
claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability
of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any.
While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and
unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification
arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the
amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the
variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or
the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies
for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) is one of the integrated
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services providers
and process technology licensors, delivering solutions to
customers primarily in the energy, petrochemical and natural
resource industries. CB&I consist of three business sectors: Steel
Plate Structures, Project Engineering and Construction, and Lummus
Technology. Through these business sectors, the Company offers
services both independently and on an integrated basis. As of
December 31, 2012, the Company had more than 900 projects in
process in more than 70 countries. On February 13, 2013, it
acquired The Shaw Group Inc. (Shaw).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Continues to Defend Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos
exposure cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

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

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

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, there were 1,072
unresolved cases for which service has been received that we have
tendered to the indemnifying party, all of which have been
accepted by the indemnifying party.

We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of
June 30, 2013, we had an accrued liability of approximately $10
million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of
approximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2013.

Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subject
to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, we may
be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of these
cases. Certain prior cases that were filed in error against us
have been dismissed.

As of six months ended June 30, 2013, there were 51 unresolved
cases which service has been received by us.

We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of nil and $82,000 during the
six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. As of June
30, 2013, we had an accrual of $47,000 relating to these cases. We
cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals
or that our liability associated with these cases would not be
material to our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or
range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2013."

Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company
operates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC
(Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a range
of chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to a
range of consumer and industrial customers. Its products are used
in a range of applications, including those in the adhesives,
aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-
durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints
and coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile
chemicals and dye industries. The Company operates in five
segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Advanced Materials,
Textile Effects and Pigments. In July 2012, the Company acquired
the remaining interest in Russian joint venture, Huntsman NMG
(HNMG). Effective March 12, 2013, it acquired 20% interest in
Nippon Aqua Co Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $6-Mil Litigation Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the three months ended June 30, 2013, Corning Incorporated
recorded asbestos litigation expense of $6 million, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period of
more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been
named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. Corning, with other relevant
parties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of
Reorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections of
the relevant parties. A proposed PCC plan of reorganization
(Amended PCC Plan) filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania was confirmed by a final order in
May 2013; however, a motion for reconsideration has been filed.
Corning also has an equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe
N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, that is a component of the
Company's proposed resolution of the PCC asbestos litigation. At
June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the fair value of PCE
exceeded its carrying value of $151 million and $149 million,
respectively.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain other non-PCC
asbestos claims that may be or have been raised against Corning.
Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation
liability an additional $150 million for the approximately 9,800
current non-PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any
future non-PCC cases. Corning's liability under the Amended PCC
Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $680
million at June 30, 2013, compared with an estimate of the
liability of $671 million at December 31, 2012. In the three and
six months ended June 30, 2013, Corning recorded asbestos
litigation expense of $6 million and $8 million, respectively. In
the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, Corning recorded
asbestos litigation expense of $5 million and $6 million,
respectively. Corning's estimated aggregate asbestos litigation
liability is classified as a non-current liability as installment
payments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to
commence until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan
becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be
fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment
in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity method
investment).

On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order
confirming, on an interim basis, the Amended PCC Plan. On May 23,
2013, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to review motions for
reconsideration of its interim order and, on May 24, 2013, it
issued a revised opinion and final order confirming the Amended
PCC Plan. On June 6, 2013, one party filed a motion for
reconsideration of that final order which is scheduled for hearing
on September 9, 2013. A different party, on June 7, 2013, filed a
notice of an appeal of that final order to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and this appeal has been
stayed pending resolution of the other party's motion for
reconsideration.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. In
March 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from the
shareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquired
Mediatech, Inc. In November 2012, Corning acquired the majority of
the Discovery Labware business from Becton, Dickinson and Company.
In May 2013, the Company acquired Bargoa SA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has 66,000 Exposure Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were 66,000 open claims asserting liabilities for personal
injury caused by exposure to asbestos against Ashland Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that
was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist in
developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for
future asbestos claims and related costs given various
assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates,
Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project future
asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including
claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted
legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim
experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the
results of previously conducted third party epidemiological
studies estimating the number of people likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities
and receivables are recorded within the discontinued operations
caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary. The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.

For the nine months ended June 30, 2013, there were 66,000 open
claims.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Approximately 65% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2013. The
remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance
companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and
from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations
have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashland
discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projected
timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely
settlement amounts can be determined.

During the December 2011 quarter, Ashland received $7 million in
cash after reaching a settlement with certain insolvent London
market insurance companies. The cash received from this settlement
during the prior period was recognized as an after-tax gain of $6
million within discontinued operations of the Statements of
Consolidated Comprehensive Income since Ashland's policy is to not
record asbestos receivables for any carriers that are insolvent
until cash is received.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against
Underwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companies
seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to
provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under
existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has
initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain
Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and
Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities
have wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position
will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of
these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of
loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance
receivables from these insurers.

At June 30, 2013, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $409 million, of which $85 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $423
million at September 30, 2012. During the June 2013 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers, was completed. This model update resulted in a $3
million decrease in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2013 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos related claims
should be increased by $46 million. Total reserves for asbestos
claims were $347 million at June 30, 2013 compared to $320 million
at September 30, 2012.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with
insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The
estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of
the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit
rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012, the receivables from
insurers amounted to $75 million and $56 million, respectively. As
previously mentioned, during the June 2013 quarter, the annual
update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos
reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from
insurers was completed. This model update caused a $19 million
increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these
estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost
models was developed. These models are based on national studies
that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-
related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions
regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and
legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned
previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models
ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is
reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range
as high as approximately $740 million for the Ashland asbestos-
related litigation and approximately $640 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.4 billion in the
aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected
in the various models. If actual experience is worse than
projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of
alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to
resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the
estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these
increases could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 77,000 PI Claims as of June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 77 thousand pending claims alleging injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos filed against ITT Corporation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined
as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These
claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our
subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

As of June 30, 2013, there were 77 thousand pending claims against
ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal
courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, 18
thousand claims pending against the Company have been placed on
inactive dockets (including in Mississippi) because the plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience
to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from the Company. Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little
or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed
in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as
the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period
to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed
in the future, and ITT will aggressively defend or seek a
reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek
to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate the
maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated
to be filed over the next 10 years.

Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. We
record a corresponding asbestos-related asset that represents our
best estimate of probable recoveries from insurers for the
estimated asbestos liabilities. Any predictions with respect to
the variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability and
related asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of the uncertainties and
variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's
asbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company will
incur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next
10 years which could be material to the financial statements, we
do not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating those
costs at this time.

The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events. However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not
possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and
unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future
events affecting the key factors and other variables within the
next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond
the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

In the third quarter, we conduct an annual study with the
assistance of outside consultants to review and update the
underlying assumptions used in our asbestos liability and related
asset estimates. During this study, the underlying assumptions are
updated based on our actual experience since our last annual
study, a reassessment of the appropriate reference period of years
of experience used in determining each assumption and our
expectations regarding future conditions, including inflation. As
part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, each
quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitative
data available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing the
data to the expectations on which the most recent annual liability
and asset estimates were based. Based on this evaluation, the
Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted
for the period ended June 30, 2013 other than the incremental
accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. The net
asbestos charges for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012
was $15.9 and $9.7, respectively. The net asbestos charges for the
six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $31.9 and $22.3,
respectively.

The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $759.7 and $739.5
as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The
following table provides a rollforward of the estimated asbestos
liability and related assets for the six months ended June 30,
2013.

ITT is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered critical
components and customized technology solutions for growing
industrial markets. Building on its heritage of innovation, ITT
partners with its customers to deliver enduring solutions to the
key industries that underpin our modern way of life. We
manufacture components that are integral to the operation of
systems and manufacturing processes in the energy, transportation
and industrial markets. Our products provide enabling
functionality for applications where reliability and performance
are critically important to our customers and the users of their
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Has 430 PD Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 430 asbestos-related property damage claims remain
outstanding against W.R. Grace & Co., according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury
lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.
As of April 2, 2001 ("Filing Date"), Grace was a defendant in
65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for property
damage (one of which has since been dismissed), and the remainder
involving 129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to the Filing,
holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from continuing to
prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuits
against the Debtors. Grace's obligations with respect to present
and future asbestos claims will be determined through the Chapter
11 process.

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

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

Approximately 4,400 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003, claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court. (The March 31, 2003, claims bar date did not apply to ZAI
claims.) Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
legal and factual bases. As of June 30, 2013, approximately 430 PD
Claims subject to the March 31, 2003, claims bar date remain
outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement
agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an
aggregate allowed amount of $151.7 million.

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

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

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date, and as of
June 30, 2013, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.
Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims
filed before December 31, 2009, would be eligible to seek
compensation from the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.
Approximately 14,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by the
December 31, 2009 bar date, and as of June 30, 2013, an additional
220 Canadian ZAI PD claims were filed subsequent to that bar date.

In November 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity
Committee reached an agreement designed to resolve all present and
future U.S. ZAI PD Claims. The terms of the U.S. and Canadian ZAI
agreements in principle have been incorporated into the terms of
the Joint Plan and related documents.

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

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

Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by Grace. Historically, Grace's cost to resolve such
claims has been influenced by numerous variables, including the
nature of the disease alleged, product identification, proof of
exposure to a Grace product, negotiation factors, the solvency of
other former producers of asbestos-containing products, cross-
claims by co-defendants, the rate at which new claims are filed,
the jurisdiction in which the claims are filed, and the defense
and disposition costs associated with these claims.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against
Grace. Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PI
Claims would have been received between the Filing Date and June
30, 2013, had such PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy
Court.

The Bankruptcy Court entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial for
estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was
suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.
Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan,
all pending and future asbestos-related personal injury claims
would be channeled for resolution to the PI Trust and Grace would
have no liability or obligation for asbestos-related personal
injury claims, except for its obligations to fund the PI Trust.

The recorded asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2013, and
December 31, 2012, was $2,065.0 million and is included in
"liabilities subject to compromise" in the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace increased its asbestos-related
liability by $365.0 million in the 2012 fourth quarter to reflect
an updated estimate of the value of the consideration payable to
the PI Trust and the PD Trust (the "Trusts") under the Joint Plan,
assuming emergence from bankruptcy at the end of 2013. Grace
reached an agreement in October 2012 to cash settle the warrant to
be issued to the PI Trust at emergence.

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

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

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

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

Proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies that
provide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferred
to the PI Trust under the Joint Plan. The recorded asbestos-
related insurance receivable and related liability of $500.0
million at June 30, 2013, is within the reasonable range of
possible valuations of these policies at emergence.

Grace periodically evaluates the recorded amount of its asbestos-
related liability and may further adjust the liability prior to
the effective date of the Joint Plan if it determines that the
currently recorded amount no longer represents a reasonable
estimate of the value of the consideration payable to the Trusts
under the Joint Plan. The recorded amount of the asbestos-related
liabilities represents a reasonable estimate of the value of the
consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust based on
the range of reasonable valuations for the warrant, deferred
payment obligations and other consideration payable to the PI
Trust and the PD Trust under the Joint Plan as of June 30, 2013,
and December 31, 2012.

The ultimate cost of settling the asbestos-related liability will
be based on the value of the consideration transferred to the
Trusts at emergence and will vary from the current estimate.

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

Grace holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to
1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. For the
most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance
coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to Grace. Pursuant to the Joint Plan,
proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies that
provide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferred
to the PI Trust.

For each insurance year, Grace's coverage consists of both primary
and excess coverage. With one exception, coverage disputes
regarding Grace's primary insurance policies have been settled,
and those settlement amounts have been paid in full.

Grace has entered into settlement agreements, which are dependent
upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with underwriters of a
portion of Grace's insurance coverage, which includes the
unsettled primary coverage. Under most of these agreements, the
insurers have agreed, subject to certain conditions, to pay to the
PI Trust (directly or through an escrow arrangement) an aggregate
of $396.1 million in respect of coverage under the affected
policies. Under the remaining agreements, the insurers have agreed
to reimburse the PI Trust, subject to certain conditions, which
will result in a partial reimbursement of the claims actually paid
by the PI Trust.

Prior to filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Grace entered into
settlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers that
are not dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan. The
unpaid maximum aggregate amount available under these settlement
agreements is approximately $487 million. Grace had no agreements
in place with insurers with respect to approximately $483 million
of excess coverage, which are at layers of coverage that have not
yet been triggered. Settlement amounts are generally payable on a
percentage of the claims actually paid, which is based on a number
of factors including the years over which a claimant was exposed
to an asbestos-containing product. Grace estimates that eligible
claims would have to exceed $4.0 billion to access the total $970
million of coverage. In the event the Joint Plan becomes
effective, some of this settled and unsettled coverage will be
superseded by the settlement agreements that are dependent upon
the effectiveness of the Joint Plan.

Grace has excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance
carriers. Non-paying carriers are those that, although technically
solvent, are not currently meeting their obligations to pay
claims. Grace has filed and continues to file claims in the
insolvency proceedings of these carriers, and Grace periodically
receives distributions from some of these insolvent carriers.

The amount of insurance recovered on claims by the PI Trust will
depend on the aggregate amount of insurance settlements on the
effective date of the Joint Plan and a number of factors that will
be determined at the time claims are paid including: the nature of
the claim, the relevant exposure years, the timing of payment, the
solvency of insurers and the legal status of policy rights. Grace
estimates that the recorded amount of $500.0 million is within the
reasonable range of possible valuations of these policies at
emergence.

W.R. Grace & Co. engages in the production and sale of specialty
chemicals and materials worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 54,969 Claims as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had 54,969 pending asbestos-related personal injury
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company was a defendant in 54,969 pending
claims filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury
or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Of the 54,969
pending claims, approximately 19,200 claims were pending in New
York, approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas,
approximately 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and
approximately 3,600 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions
in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company plans to file post-trial motions seeking to
overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the
damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York
appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and
further were subject to settlement offsets. The Company plans to
pursue an appeal if necessary.

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

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the six-month
periods ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 totaled $43.1 million and
$49.7 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month periods
ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 totaled $28.9 million and $39.2
million, respectively.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2013, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 93,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $380
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $4,100. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
was $6,300, $4,123 and $7,036, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability. For a discussion regarding the four most significant
factors affecting the liability estimate.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management
believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various
factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to
provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims,
the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years
beyond the indicated estimate.

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

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

Liability Estimate. With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of
December 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimate
of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or
indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending
claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company
through 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos
claims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of
this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional
liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's
decision to take this action at such date was based on several
factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably
estimate this liability for the additional period noted. First,
the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting
approximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims,
have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate
settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and
associated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the
Company's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to
be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable.
Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend of
case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the
asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third,
there have been significant actions taken by certain state
legislatures and courts over the past several years that have
reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial,
which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered into
coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess
insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable
relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the
Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these
factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably
estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future
claims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that the
Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and
defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the
Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably
estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded
for any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made
subsequent to 2021.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
June 30, 2013, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,
the Company determined that no change in the estimate was
warranted for the period ended June 30, 2013. Nevertheless, if
certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease,
the liability could change materially; however, all the
assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are
interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining
the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to
and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of
its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the
Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates
beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably
estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $749 million as of June 30, 2013. It is
not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at June 30, 2013 was $92 million
and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs
expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is
based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year
payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant
portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by
its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary
coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers
to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/or
defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into
agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-
in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such
coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in
force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the
Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms
and conditions that address, among other things, the share of
asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,
claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's
obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the
Company has entered into an agreement with a group of insurers
confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the
subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future
reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity
and defense payments made. In addition, with nine of its excess
insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements,
settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed
sum, totaling $82.1 million in aggregate. Reimbursements from
insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs
allocable to their policies have been made in accordance with
these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of these
agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification
of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling
procedures. The Company has concluded settlements with all but one
of its solvent excess insurers whose policies are expected to
respond to the aggregate costs included in the updated liability
estimate. That insurer, which issued a single applicable policy,
has been paying the shares of defense and indemnity costs the
Company has allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights.
There are no pending legal proceedings between the Company and any
insurer contesting the Company's asbestos claims under its
insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $188 million as of June 30, 2013.

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

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

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

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

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense
electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle
(RV), transportation, automated merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In June 2012, it sold Azonix
Corporation to Cooper Industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 432 Pending PI Cases at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 432 asbestos-related personal
injury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have
been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current
or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases
pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific
dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific
dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a
monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary
claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not
attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various
defendants.

There were 432 asbestos cases pending at June 30, 2013, of which
127 had total claims with specific dollar claims for damages
involving a total of 2,388 plaintiffs and 17,458 defendants.

In each case, the amount is per plaintiff against all of the
defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at the
outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a
claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible
at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be
determined through written interrogatories or other discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only
accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel
has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff
will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment
to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK
Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of
asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target
defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these
claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small
fraction of the damages initially claimed.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the
asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present
knowledge, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution
in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have
a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,
predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically
defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be
suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of
legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company).
The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking and
finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operations
produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated,
cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialty
stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip
form, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished into
welded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations include
European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel
products and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy Vets Have Highest Rates of Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that US Navy Veterans have some
of the highest incidence of mesothelioma, or asbestos-related lung
cancers of all Americans. This is because during the 1950's,
1960's, 1970's, and 1980's asbestos was used on most parts of all
US Navy ships, especially in engine rooms, ammunition magazines,
repair rooms, fuel storage areas, and or electronics areas.

Currently, there are over 20 million US Navy veterans, many of
whom will have worked at Navy shipyards across the US. According
to the Centers for Disease Control, the six states that see the
highest rate of individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma include
Maine, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Wyoming, and
Washington. Both Washington, and Maine have major shipyards. Other
states with major shipyards include California, Virginia,
Louisiana, Alabama, Maryland, and Texas.

Sadly, US Navy veterans aren't the only group of people at high
risk for asbestos disease stemming from workplace exposure, the
report said.  Aside from shipyards, power plants, manufacturing
factories, chemical plants, oil refineries, steel mills, mines,
smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities, demolition
construction work sites, railroads repair yards, automotive
manufacturing facilities, or auto brake repair shops, also posed
or pose significant risks for asbestos exposure, particularly for
people working in these areas during the 1950s through to the end
of the 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Companies Sued for Fibro-related Disease
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that three people have filed an
asbestos lawsuit naming four defendant companies as responsible
for the diagnosis of asbestos related disease in one of the
plaintiffs.

According to the report, the defendants named in the complaint are
Atlantic Richfield Co., Beazer East Inc., Certainteed Corp. and
Guard-Line Inc. Audrey J. Hawkins, Terri Banken and Gina Daigle
claim Floyd Hawkins was diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of
ongoing asbestos exposure through the course of his work,
specifically through large amounts of asbestos in products
manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined,
milled, relabeled, resold, processed, applied or installed by the
defendants.

Floyd Hawkins's disease resulted from inhaling, ingesting or
otherwise absorbing asbestos fibers while at work, the plaintiffs
claim in their suit, the report related.  They further allege that
Mr. Hawkins was not at any time during his work, aware or made
aware of the hazards of asbestos exposure.

According to the complaint, the defendants failed to adequately
warn Floyd Hawkins of the serious health hazards related to
asbestos exposure and failed to provide him with what would be
considered adequate and safe working apparel, the report further
related.

Further, the defendants failed to provide Mr. Hawkins with a safe
workplace and allowed dangerous conditions to exist, the complaint
states. The defendants also allegedly were negligent in that they
failed to test their products before they were released into the
stream of commerce; failed to place warning labels on the asbestos
products; failed to warn Floyd Hawkins on the proper way to handle
asbestos products; failed to enforce a safety plan; and failed to
follow government regulations. Because of his disease, Floyd
Hawkins experienced physical pain, suffering and mental anguish;
endured emotional distress and physical impairment; and incurred
medical costs, the complaint says.

Floyd Hawkins children also claim that following the death of
their father they suffered the loss of his care, maintenance,
support, services, advice, counsel and reasonable contributions
and suffered mental anguish.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Electrician Awarded $6MM in Exposure Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that a retired electrician who
filed an asbestos lawsuit in Louisiana has been awarded by the
jury hearing his case, nearly $6 million finding that his alleged
asbestos exposures at a Dow Chemical facility was a factor in
causing his mesothelioma.

According to the report, at the end of the trial, which ran four
weeks, the Louisiana 18th Judicial District Court for Iberville
Parish jury held trial defendant Dow Chemical responsible under
theories of negligence and unreasonably dangerous premises. Dow
Chemical and Westgate, an electrical contractor and the
plaintiff's former employer, were the only defendants remaining at
the time of the verdict.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Aussie Victim Handed 'Watershed' Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Puddy, writing for The Australian, reported that after
decades of inequality, South Australian asbestos victims have been
awarded the same compensation as victims in other states.

According to the report, BHP lost an appeal against the widow of a
former worker, Raymond Hamilton, who was exposed to asbestos while
working in BHP's shipyard at Whyalla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bourne System Expedites Fibro Removal Projects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bourne Courier reported that the Bourne school system this summer
has worked to remove asbestos in ceilings and tiles in three
buildings; Peebles Elementary, Otis Memorial and Bourne High
School.

According to the report, flooring tiles in nine BHS classrooms was
removed along with tiles in three areas at Otis Memorial on Joint
Base Cape Cod.

Asbestos in the ceiling and flooring at Peebles cafeteria was also
taken out, the report said.  Testing of the area was due Aug. 12,
Superintendent Steve Lamarche said. A new cafeteria floor is set
to be installed by a contractor, he said.

Lamarche said the floor in a full-day kindergarten classroom at
Peebles has also been replaced, the report added.

The superintendent credited the support of the capital outlay
committee for the expedited asbestos removal scheduling this
summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Train Cleaner Dies of Fibro-Related Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Moody, writing for Burton Mail, reported that a former steam
train cleaner died from cancer years after coming into contact
with asbestos, his inquest has heard.

According to the report, Peter King died at Hoar Cross Nursing
Home on June 26 from mesothelioma, after being given the diagnosis
on July 27 last year.

Corners officer Stephanie Mason told his inquest, held at Burton
Town Hall, that the 78-year-old had successfully claimed for
compensation from British Rail after his cancer diagnosis as he
had worked for the company years previously cleaning the steam
trains, the report related.

Mr King, who lived in Athlestan Way, Stretton, before moving to
the nursing home, was placed in palliative care due to his
condition after it was confirmed he was terminally ill, the report
added.  He was also a non-smoker and very infrequent alcohol
drinker.

His wife Linda said it a statement to the inquest: "It is a very
cruel and distressing disease for both the patient and the
career."

South Staffordshire coroner Andrew Haigh said mesothelioma is
nearly always linked to exposure to asbestos.  He said: "Mr King
was 78 when he died and during his working life one of his jobs
was with British Rail working on the steam trains where he was
exposed to asbestos.

"A number of years later, in 2012, he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

"As his wife confirmed, it is a horrible condition, not just for
the patient but for the family as well.

"Mr King survived to make a successful claim against British Rail
but his health gradually deteriorated and he was moved to the
nursing home.

"I am satisfied he died from mesothelioma as the result of
asbestos exposure."

Mr Haigh recorded Mr King died as the result of industrial
disease.  He said to Mrs King: "I know this probably comes as no
surprise but I hope it has been of some assistance.

"This condition usually appears many years after exposure to
asbestos and I am very sorry this has happened to you."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Center Urges Manufacturing Workers to Call
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "We are incredibly
focused on making certain all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma,
or asbestos exposure forms of lung cancer get the best possible
financial compensation. At the top of our list are manufacturing
workers, who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or asbestos
exposure forms of lung cancer, because these types of individuals
could be eligible for substantial financial compensation. In the
instances of a manufacturing worker, who worked at a chemical
manufacturing facility, a oil refinery, a shipyard, or a factory,
who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, we could easily be
talking about compensation that exceeds a million dollars.
However, we need to emphasize compensation for mesothelioma, or
asbestos exposure forms of lung cancer is a byproduct of the
skill, and experience of a mesothelioma attorney, or asbestos
exposure law firm, that represents a client, and we only suggest
the nation's leading mesothelioma attorneys, or asbestos exposure
law firms. When it comes to compensation for mesothelioma, or
asbestos exposure lung cancer the quality, and the skill, of the
attorney, and their law firm matters." For more information
victims of mesothelioma, asbestos exposure lung cancer victims, or
their family members are urged to call the Lung Cancer Asbestos
Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.

Important Note From The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center: "When
we talk about diagnosed a victim of mesothelioma, or asbestos
exposure forms of lung cancer, our number one goal is the best
possible compensation, and national caliber mesothelioma, or
asbestos exposure law firms, that really do get the best possible
compensation for their clients. We also need to emphasize, we are
talking about victims of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure lung
cancer in all states, including California, Florida, New York, New
Jersey, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia,
West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas,
Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana,
Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, Alaska, or
any other state. We also need family members, or friends to help
us get these victims identified, and the diagnosed victim, or
their family members can call us anytime at 866-714-6466, for our
unsurpassed services." http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Veterans of the US
Navy probably had the highest exposure levels to asbestos, because
asbestos was on all US Navy ships until recently. Other high risk
workplaces for asbestos exposure include shipyards, steel mills,
power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oil
refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities,
demolition construction work sites, railroad repair yards,
automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops,
especially if the exposure to asbestos took place in the 1950's,
1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. With mesothelioma, or lung cancer
caused by asbestos exposure the cancer may not show up until
decades after the exposure. As long as the victim, or their family
members can prove the exposure to asbestos, we will do everything
possible to help them get what might be significant financial
compensation." For more information please call the Lung Cancer
Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma,or lung cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos please visit the US Centers For Disease
Control's web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MTV's 'Real World' Star Dies of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that celebrity Sean
Sasser of MTV fame lived productively for 25 years after being
diagnosed with HIV, a testament to the progress that has been made
in treating a once-deadly disease.  Yet he lived only six weeks
after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a reminder of
how aggressive this asbestos cancer is.

According to the report, Sasser, who rose to fame in "The Real
World: San Francisco," a reality television show that launched in
the 1990s, died. He was 44. His death came soon after he was hit
by the rare but lethal interaction of these two insidious
diseases.

"If you are HIV positive, and you get mesothelioma, it's going to
travel like wildfire. It happens so fast, it makes your head
spin," said Raja Flores, M.D., chief of thoracic surgery at Mount
Sinai Hospital in New York City and a renowned authority on
mesothelioma, the report related.

"You hardly ever see it -- I've seen it only twice in my life --
but you put the two together, and it's a real bad situation,"
Flores told Asbestos.com.

Flores did not treat Sasser and did not speak of him specifically,
but he responded to a question about the effect that HIV would
have on a mesothelioma patient.

                   Immune System Plays Key Role

Mesothelioma, which is diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 Americans
annually, is caused by inhalation or ingestion of microscopic
asbestos fibers. There is normally a long latency period (10 to 50
years) between exposure and diagnosis. It is diagnosed typically
in older patients (65-70) who worked for many years around
asbestos products.

The expected survival rate after diagnosis of mesothelioma is 9 to
18 months. The key to recent advancements in survival time has
been immunotherapy, which fights the disease by strengthening the
body's immune system.

HIV, conversely, attacks the body's immune system and destroys
cells that help the body fight various diseases, which is why it
triggers such a negative reaction with mesothelioma.

"I don't know of any connection where HIV will predispose you to
getting mesothelioma, but if you put them together, it will travel
quickly," Flores said. "It happens so rarely. It's not the typical
patient population we see."

Sasser, according to various reports, had no known occupational
exposure to asbestos. However, because asbestos was used
extensively in both residential and commercial construction
throughout much of the 20th century, millions of Americans were
unknowingly exposed to the toxic mineral.

According to a multi-center study in 2009 that is part of Cases
Journal and the National Institutes of Health, researchers believe
that HIV can make a person prone to developing mesothelioma, and
even suggested it could cause the disease.

"The development of mesothelioma in patients with HIV/AIDS . . .
suggests that chronic immunosuppression enhances susceptibility to
mesothelioma," says the study. "Cases have been reported in this
patient population without a history of asbestos exposure."

                    Compelling Story Line

Sasser became well-known after breaking cultural barriers with his
well-publicized commitment ceremony on "The Real World" show to
Pedro Zamora. They were the first openly gay, openly HIV-positive
couple on television. Zamora, a better-known AIDS activist, died
of the disease shortly after the final episode of the season aired
in 1994.

At the time, AIDS still was considered a fatal disease. It wasn't
until later in the decade that rapid advancements in treatment
developed.

Sasser, like many others, was able to manage the disease through
vigilance and medical advancements. His relationship with Zamora
became the most compelling story line for the show. It also was a
landmark moment in television history.

Sasser remained an AIDS activist and educator for many years,
although his television career faded. He  worked much of this year
in Washington, D.C., as a pastry chef.

Sasser's longtime partner, Michael Kaplan, told CNN, a day after
his death was announced, that Sasser was diagnosed early in July
with Stage IV mesothelioma.

It followed diagnostic tests in June that first revealed serious
problems. He died in the home he shared with Kaplan, according to
CNN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Man Gets Prison for Mishandling Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Dvorak, writing for The Associated Press, reported that a
judge imposed a six-month prison sentence on a former construction
supervisor convicted of mishandling pipes coated with asbestos
during an upgrade of Orofino's municipal sewer and water system.

According to the report, Douglas Greiner, 52, of Eagle, pleaded
guilty in a deal with prosecutors earlier this year to a criminal
charge of violating the federal Clean Air Act. The law and the
regulations designed to enforce it spell out how construction
crews must remove, handle and dispose of hazardous materials like
the decades-old, cement and asbestos-covered pipe that was dug up
by Greiner's crew four years ago.

Investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency accused
Greiner, a former employee of Owyhee Construction Inc., of failing
to properly oversee as crews removed and cut up the pipe and
illegally disposed of 2,400 tons of soil laced with asbestos
shards in 16 sites around town, the report said.

As a result, the EPA stepped in and paid nearly $4 million to
clean up the disposal sites, the report related.

In U.S. District Court in Boise, Greiner apologized for his
actions and said he never intended to cause harm to anyone.

Public defender, Christian Collins, made a case for leniency,
saying no proof exists showing Greiner, a 30-year industry
veteran, schemed to shirk federal law or was motivated by criminal
or malicious intent. Collins argued the real flaw was the
company's failure to provide proper training while signing
contracts that clearly spelled out the likelihood of dealing with
asbestos piping.

"I should have been on site more often, paid more attention to
what was going on," said Greiner, who also was ordered to six
months of house arrest after his prison release. "This whole thing
could have been avoided . . . if everybody on the project had done
their job."

Judge Edward Lodge acknowledged there was a good argument that
Greiner didn't act intentionally.

"But this is a serious crime. The message has to go out that in
these situations . . . in any of these asbestos cases, big or
small, you have to oversee them. You can't allow something to
happen that will put people in jeopardy," Lodge said.

Lodge handed out the same sentence to Bradley Eberhart, who was
the OCI crew foreman on the Orofino project who reported to
Greiner.

EPA officials say their criminal investigation is ongoing and is
now focused on OCI executives.

Officials with the Boise-based construction company did not
immediately return a telephone message left by the Associated
Press.

Lodge ordered Eberhart to pay $3.9 million in restitution, the
cost of the government cleanup. Greiner's attorney challenged
efforts to require Greiner to share that financial burden and
Lodge asked attorneys from both sides to file briefs on the issue
before making a decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wild Winds Expose Deadly Dust at Rockdale
----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Carr, writing for St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader,
reported that yellow tape warning of asbestos surrounds part of
Rockdale Council's Bexley depot after wild winds tore parts off
the building's roof.

According to the report, the depot is in Rye Avenue, Bexley, and
sections of Preddy's Lane at the depot's rear have been taped off.

The asbestos was exposed when the roof lifted off, the report
said.

A council spokesman said the exposed friable asbestos had been
contained, the report further related.

"A tarp has been fastened onto the exposed area of the roof,
professional asbestos removal contractors and a hygenist, who is
monitoring the works,  are remediating the site that will be
operational by the end of the week," the spokesman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrin Conferences Introduces New Panel Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just four weeks out from the Asbestos Litigation Conference,
Perrin Conferences is offering registered attendees new panel
content entitled 'Insurance Perspective on Asbestos Litigation in
2013.' This roundtable discussion, with today's leading insurance
professionals, strives to address the critical challenges posed by
current asbestos litigation.

Moderated by Thomas W. Tardy, III, partner at Forman Perry Watkins
Krutz & Tardy LLP, the session will feature speakers Stephanie
Schrandt Boone, Senior Claims Expert, Senior Vice President with
Swiss RE America Holding Corporation, Peter Dinunzio, Assistant
Vice President with Resolute Management, Inc., Timothy Donlon,
Vice President of Claims with RiverStone Claims Management LLC,
Cindy Koehler, Esq., Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
with Liberty Mutual Group, Linda Tatka, Claims Director-Asbestos
with Fireman's Fund/Allianz Insurance Company, Maria Thompson,
Assistant Vice President of Claims with Brandywine Group of
Insurance & Reinsurance Companies and John J. Veracoechea,
Assistant Vice President with P & C Severity Claims, AIG.

"Our insurance company executives provide their inimitable point
of view on the trends in asbestos litigation," said Lynnsey
Perrin, founder of Perrin Conferences. "We are pleased to have so
many well-regarded leading companies represented on the panel and
to offer this unique perspective to conference attendees."

The event brings asbestos insurance, legal, corporate and
scientific leaders together to consider the direction and climate
of current asbestos litigation. More than 50 acclaimed speakers
will feature at the 5th Annual National Asbestos Litigation
Conference hosted by Perrin Conferences, acclaimed leader in joint
plaintiff/defendant litigation conferences, September 16-18 at the
Fairmont San Francisco Hotel.

What:
5th Annual Asbestos Litigation Conference: A National Overview &
Outlook

When:
September 16-18, 2013

Where:
The Fairmont San Francisco Hotel
950 Mason Street
San Francisco, California, 94108

About Perrin Conferences

Perrin Conferences sets the standard in professional litigation
education and networking. The leading national provider of joint
plaintiff/defendant litigation conferences, Perrin Conferences
offers comprehensive and specialized continuing legal education in
an atmosphere of learning, networking and sharing. Bringing
together preeminent national talent in specialty legal spheres,
Perrin Conferences ensures their events deliver innovative
content, networking opportunities and career development.
Attendees gain insights that cannot be found elsewhere. Follow the
latest Perrin Conference news here and on Twitter @PerrinConf. For
more information visit http://www.perrinconferences.com

There is no charge for media covering this event. For media
credentials and further information, please contact Lynnsey Perrin
at 610 804 6165 or lperrin@perrinconferences.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Ipswich PCYC
-------------------------------------------------
Kieran Banks, writing for The Queensland Times, reported that the
hazardous material asbestos has been found at an Ipswich community
facility used by children.

According to the report, suspect material was found under an
"unused" stage at the Ipswich PCYC on Griffith Rd in May and
isolated as a precaution after the advice from an asbestos removal
company.

A sample was taken for analysis and lab results confirmed the
presence of asbestos on sheeting at the PCYC on July 16, the
report said.

Parents are frustrated they were not informed about the finding,
the report related.  One parent told The Queensland Times she
received no notification from the PCYC and only learned about the
asbestos discovery through a third party. And she said the area in
question was occasionally used by children.

A PCYC spokesperson said advice from asbestos removalists
suggested the material would not pose a danger if it was left
undisturbed.

The area will remain sealed and isolated until the asbestos is
removed.

Queensland Police-Citizens Youth Welfare Association CEO Senior
Sergeant Rob Fiedler said the asbestos is due to be removed on
August 26.

Snr-Sgt Fielder said any parent, member or staff concerned by the
find can contact the club manager for more information.

"The area is not part of the activities area and the isolation of
the area has not caused any disruption to activities and the
safety of members of the public or staff," he said.

"In any case, an air clearance certificate will be provided to
ensure the area is safe prior to completion of works.

"Activities at the club are not affected and we have taken the
necessary precautions. Any parent, member or staff can contact the
club manager."

Snr-Sgt Fiedler said the asbestos removalists were booked in at
the first available appointment.

If asbestos is disturbed it can release dangerous fine particles
of dust containing potentially deadly asbestos fibres.  Asbestos
can now only be removed by licensed operators.

The Ipswich PCYC first opened 45 years ago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Center Urges Victims' Families to Call
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center is urging family members
of a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure lung
cancer, to step up to the plate, and to call them for on the spot
contact information for the nation's most experienced mesothelioma
attorneys, or asbestos exposure law firms, because when it comes
to financial compensation the experience, and the capabilities of
the mesothelioma attorney, or asbestos exposure law firm is vital.
The Lung Cancer asbestos Victims Center says, "The most heart
breaking part about diagnosed victims of mesothelioma, asbestos
exposure forms of lung cancer, or their family members is they
frequently wait too long to explore financial compensation
possibilities, and they end up getting nothing. A mesothelioma
financial compensation claim can be worth hundreds of thousands,
or millions of a dollars, an asbestos exposure lung cancer
compensation claim can be worth up to several hundred thousand
dollars, but we need family members to call us, so we can get the
victim to the best possible mesothelioma attorneys, or asbestos
exposure law firms, because all too often the victim is too old,
and too sick to help themselves." For more information diagnosed
victims of mesothelioma, asbestos exposure lung cancer victims,
and especially their family members are urged to contact the Lung
Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "The states with the
highest incidence of mesothelioma include Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and Maine. However,
diagnosed victims of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure forms of
lung cancer live in all states including Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri, Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Kansas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and
Alaska." http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "High risk
workplaces for mesothelioma, asbestos exposure forms of lung
cancer include the US Navy, factories, shipyards, power plants,
chemical plants, oil refineries, aerospace manufacturing
facilities, demolition construction work sites, railroad repair
yards, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops,
especially if the exposure to asbestos took place in the 1950's,
1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. With mesothelioma, or lung cancer
caused by asbestos exposure the mesothelioma, or lung cancer may
not show up until decades after the exposure. As long as the
victim of mesothelioma, or a lung cancer victim who had asbestos
exposure at work, or their family members can prove the exposure
to asbestos, we will do everything possible to help them get what
might be significant financial compensation by suggesting the most
skilled, and experienced lawyers." For more information please
call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-
6466. http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, or lung cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos please visit the US Centers For Disease
Control's web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Says Fibro Disease 'Like Gun to Head'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Cherryman, writing for The Evening Telegraph, reported that a
former Dundee painter struck down with an asbestos illness said
it's like living with a "gun to your head".

According to the report, Granddad Willie Stewart, 65, is yet
another victim struck down with the "frightening" condition after
working for a city decorating firm in the 60s.

The Evening Telegraph revealed fellow city painter Billy Tully was
taking his former employer to court after developing asbestosis,
the report said.  And Willie has a similar illness which he says
could develop into cancer "at any time".

"It's a time bomb," he said, the report related.  "If it gets to
that stage the doctors said I might just have five or six months
to live. The worry is over not knowing. It's like there's a gun
held to your head and you don't know when the trigger is going to
get pulled."

Willie thinks his condition traces back to a job he did in 1965.
He said: "We were working across at Leuchars air base and we had
to scrape asbestos.

"We were covered in it, we had the dust around our mouths like
asbestos beards or moustaches."

Willie started his apprenticeship the same day as Ballumbie
grandad Billy, who is suffering with incurable asbestosis.  And
the pair are appealing to all workmen in the 60s and 70s to get
checked.

"There's a lot more out there," said Willie. "So many young lads
were working with it then."

The granddad of Caitlin, 14, and Kimberley, 11, has thickened and
scarred lungs from the asbestos.  Willie had lived in Lochee all
his life until he moved with wife Sheila, 65, last year to
Midlothian.  Billy has a GBP20,000 compensation claim with his
former employers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meetings Set on Coolidge School Fibro Clean Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Chapman, writing for WBNG.com, reported that with Calvin
Coolidge Elementary temporarily closed, the Binghamton School
District will provide updates to staff and parents on asbestos
abatement.

It scheduled two separate meetings for staff and parents and
guardians of students, the report related.

The district closed the elementary school on Aug 7 after tests
showed asbestos fibers in several areas of the building, the
report said.  The school board approved an emergency resolution so
the district could get asbestos abatement started as soon as
possible.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concern on Demolition at Turner Brothers Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rochdale Online reported that with the news that part of the
Turner Brothers Asbestos site is to be demolished, Save Spodden
Valley has given a guarded welcome to a "careful demolition of
part of the TBA site" but says there is concern about the lack of
official communication on the technical issues.

According to the report, the documents seen related to asbestos
containing materials within the buildings -- there is no specific
mention of the risk of accumulated asbestos fibre release
resulting from decades of dusty production. This fine dust could
be released from wall and roof voids during demolition.

A spokesman for SSV said: "I'm sorry to say that this is an issue
that Rochdale Council has failed to address," the report related.

For nine years SSV has been asking for outdoor air monitoring to
record any potential environmental asbestos fibre releases, the
report said.

The spokesman said: "Whilst Rochdale Council makes mention of air
monitoring it fails to point out this is just the standard type of
indoor monitoring that is a basic legal requirement."
The spokesman added: "We await sight of all relevant documents
when they become available."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues 47 Companies Over Fibro-related Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a
woman has named 47 defendants in an asbestos suit that caused her
father's death.

Phillip D. Ohlinger was diagnosed with lung cancer in March and
died on July 9, according to a complaint filed July 30 in Kanawha
Circuit Court, the report related.

Ann Ohlinger claims he smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from
1950 until 2003, but then quit, the report said.

The defendants exposed Phillip Ohlinger to asbestos during his
employment as a sales person, laborer, furnance stoker and
maintenance worker from 1953 until 1992, according to the suit.

Ann Ohlinger claims the defendants are being sued based upon
theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of
expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort,
conspiracy, misrepresentations and post-sale duty to warn.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as
Phillip Ohlinger's employers for deliberate intnet/intentional
tort, according to the suit.

Ann Ohlinger is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved. She is being represented by Victoria Antion, Anne
McGinness Kearse and Scott A. McGee of Motley Rice LLC and
Christopher Tenoglia.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; American Electric
Power Service Corporation; Beazer East Inc.; Brand Insulations
Inc.; Catalytic Construction Company; Caterpillar Inc.; and
Certainteed Corporation were some of the 47 defendants named in
the suit.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-1439


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Records Show Pa. Firm Violations Before Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryclaire Dale, writing for The Associated Press, reported that a
Philadelphia demolition contractor racked up several violations at
the site where a wall collapsed onto an adjacent Salvation Army
store, killing six people, according to newly-released records.

According to the report, the city released some permits, emails
and other documents related to the June 5 collapse, which is the
subject of both criminal and civil investigations.

Demolition subcontractor Sean Benschop is charged with involuntary
manslaughter for allegedly operating heavy equipment while
impaired, the report related.

The new documents show that contractor Griffin Campbell had been
cited in May for starting interior demolition work before
informing the city, and for having asbestos-laden material in a
trash bin at the site, the report added. Campbell allegedly told
the inspector someone had discarded the material into his truck.

The records show that asbestos has since been found at the site,
despite a pre-demolition pledge the buildings were asbestos free.

Campbell's lawyer did not immediately return a message, but he has
earlier said his client was an experienced contractor who was
onsite the day of the collapse.

Meanwhile, new video from a transit bus offers new images and
details of the Market Street collapse.

The permits obtained to demolish three adjacent buildings on the
block lack any detail on how the work was to be done, or who was
to do it. Such safety plans did not have to be filed with the
city.

However, a series of emails between representatives of the
building owner, the Salvation Army and city Commerce Director Alan
Greenberger detail the owner's stalled efforts to gain access to
the space above the one-story Salvation Army property. STB
Investments Corp., a company linked to developer Richard Basciano,
wanted to install a tarp and plywood over the store's roof to
catch any stray debris, and to position a bucket truck over the
store so workers could demolish a four-story brick wall inward --
away from the store.

Thomas J. Simmonds Jr., STB's property manager, complained on
May 22 that the Salvation Army was being unresponsive, causing "a
situation that poses a threat to life and limb."

Greenberger told The Philadelphia Inquirer, which first reported
on the emails, that he thought he got another email within the
hour suggesting the issue was being resolved. A Salvation Army
lawyer told the newspaper the two sides were still negotiating.

Neither a tarp nor a bucket truck was in place when the wall
collapsed onto the store two weeks later, burying about 19 people
in rubble.

Prosecutors believe Benschop may have been using an excavator at
the scene to knock down the wall, rather than doing the delicate
task by hand.

City Councilman James Kenney said that developers frequently run
into delays because of problems negotiating with their neighbors.

"You have to work them out," Kenney said. "They continued to go
ahead and do the work, in a slipshod way."

A veteran city building inspector, Ronald Wagenhoffer, visited the
project on May 14, six days after a citizen complained that the
demolition looked unsafe. He found nothing amiss that day.
Wagenhoffer committed suicide days after the collapse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup to Start at Coolidge Elementary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meghin Delaney, writing for Press Connects, reported that cleanup
work will begin at Calvin Coolidge Elementary School, where
disturbed asbestos is forcing officials to relocate students when
classes start in three weeks.

According to the report, Sunstream Corporation, a Binghamton-based
environmental contracting company, will be overseeing the work,
said Karry Mullins, assistant superintendent for administration.
Jennings Environmental Management in Binghamton will monitor the
air quality.

Disturbed asbestos in the building's basement crawl space was
confirmed on July 30 after a routine three-year check of the area,
the report related. Unsafe air levels in the entire building,
excluding the gym and the cafeteria, were confirmed on Aug. 7.

More than 200 students, teachers and city employees were in the
building between July 30 and Aug. 7, as part of a free six-week
summer enrichment program for children entering kindergarten up to
grade four, the report added.  Binghamton City School District
officials shut down the building Aug. 7 after confirming unsafe
levels of airborne asbestos.

District officials then submitted a plan for abatement and cleanup
to the state Department of Labor. The state approved the plan,
allowing the district to hire a contractor and begin work, Mullins
said.

With classes scheduled to open after Labor Day, district officials
are trying to find a temporary home for Coolidge students.

"We're in the process of looking at schools that recently have
closed and how can we distribute kids throughout the district to
accommodate their needs," Binghamton Superintendent Marion
Martinez said.

School principals have been meeting with district officials to
identify unused or extra space in existing school buildings that
may accommodate more students. Officials are also looking at other
venues that could keep all the displaced Coolidge students
together.

No decision has been made. Martinez said any relocation or
displacement of students would be temporary until the building can
be thoroughly cleaned out and the air re-tested.

Martinez expects students to be back in the building by December.

"We don't want to set up false expectations," she said. "We want
people to settle where they are, we want the least disruption as
possible so that kids can have a good start to the school year."

Materials in the building at the time of the closure cannot be
removed. Photos will be taken to document what is in each
classroom by certified inspectors and workers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 City Homes Slated for Demolition After Floods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Komarnicki, writing for The Calgary Herald, reported that
Calgary's chief building inspector says 25 homeowners have applied
to have their houses torn down in the wake of the floods, and
seven demolition permits have already been granted.

According to the report, as Calgarians continue to assess how
badly their residences were hit by the flood water, several have
decided not to rebuild, said Marco Civitarese.

"There's lots of reasons why owners have come in saying why they
want to demolish, some for the simple fact of redeveloping, some
for the simple fact of cost implications and some that just felt
it might be worth more torn down," he said, the report related.

Homeowners need a demolition permit and must ensure all services
are turned off, including electrical, gas and water, the report
added.  Further, some of the houses may also require asbestos
abatement.

The demolition applications came from some of the hardest-hit
neighbourhoods, including Bowness and Erlton.

At least one home has already been torn down at the direction of
the city. The Bowness home, which was razed soon after the waters
began to recede in early July, had a four-to six-metre sinkhole
beneath it, and had about a third of its brick foundation missing.

That home was near collapse and the city ordered it to come down
for public safety reasons, said Civitarese.

The 25 demolition applications represent just a small portion of
the roughly 3,000 Calgary homes affected by the floods. Unless the
homes pose a danger to the public, the city is leaving it up to
the homeowner to decide whether to tear down and rebuild, said
Civitarese.

"Of course, to remediate it, it costs quite a bit of money to fix
some of these places up," he said.

"That's a choice the owner has to make at the end of the day."

Ald. Dale Hodges, whose ward includes hard-hit Bowness, said he
wouldn't be surprised to see more houses brought down in the
community but he hasn't yet been made aware of demolition
applications.

"It's kind of distressing to see what were once perfectly good
houses in bad shape," he said.

The number of homes elsewhere in the province facing demolition
remains unclear.

A spokeswoman for the province's flood recovery task force said
the province is still compiling that number.

According to Rick Fraser, the associate minister of recovery and
reconstruction for High River, officials are assessing whether
homes in the southern Alberta community will need to be
demolished, but none have been brought down yet.

Old asbestos or new mould creeping into the homes from the flood
water further complicates any demolition, he said.

"It's critical for people to understand that if it's mould or
asbestos, you can't just demolish your home," said Fraser.

"All that stuff needs to be taken out from an environmental
standpoint first. Once that's done, we can bring down the home in
a safe manner."

During the course of the flood and recovery, Alberta Health
Services worked with High River officials to survey the worst hit
communities.

The authority deemed 448 homes as not fit for habitation --
requiring professional remediation before the occupants can
return, said AHS spokeswoman Shannon Evans.

The homes are now being reassessed to see how many are fit for
people to live in again once they've been fixed up, she said.

So far, 35 of the 448 homes have had the not-fit-for-habitation
assessment lifted, said Evans.

"Assessments continue to proceed, as remediation is completed,"
she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Memorial Outing to Raise Funds for Meso Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Record reported that after just three years, the Jeff
Crist Memorial Golf Outing has already raised $86,000 to promote
research and awareness about mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive
form of cancer that develops after exposure to asbestos.

According to the report, Crist, a York native, died in September
2009 at age 60, five months after being diagnosed with the
disease.

This year, the fourth annual golf event will be held at Sept. 19
at Heritage Hills Golf Resort and has a goal of raising $30,000.
All proceeds will benefit the International Mesothelioma Research
Program in Boston, where Crist went for treatment, the report
added.

The golf tournament will be a four-player scramble, the report
said.  There will also be hole-in-one and closest-to-the-pin
prizes, plus a putting contest and team prizes in three divisions.
The registration package includes golf, cart, lunch, an awards
dinner and more.

The registration fee for individual golfers is $135.

Packages that include sponsorship recognition and multiple golfers
start at $500.

Non-golf sponsorships are also available. Tickets for dinner only
and a silent auction are also available.

The event's sponsors already include Harley-Davidson, Chick-fil-A,
Apple BMW, Rutter's, Apex Energy and Utz.

For more information or to register, go to
www.jeffcristmemorial.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Commonly Ending Up In Illegal Landfills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Londonberry Sentinel reported that nothing has been done for
dumping asbestos illegally in the past two years but it is not
unusual to find it mixed with other waste in illegal landfills.

Alex Attwood said: "Asbestos is not uncommonly identified mixed
with other types of waste in illegal landfills." In the past 2
years, 30 prosecutions for waste crime, generated GBP85k," the
report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supercheap Auto Fire Damage Bills Hits $5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that the damage bill from
the fire which destroyed Supercheap Auto in Myaree has been
estimated at $5 million.

According to the report, the fire started in the large Supercheap
Auto shop in the light industrial area at the corner of Leach
Highway and North Lake Road just after 4am, the Department of Fire
and Emergency Services said.

About 50 career firefighters from 12 stations were called in to
fight the blaze and brought it under control by about 5.45am, the
report added.

It was feared an asbestos roof and chemicals inside the store
could cause toxic fumes to spread in the surrounding area.

DFES, City of Melville, Department of Environment and Regulation
Pollution Response Unit, and Department of Health have been on the
scene this morning and have guaranteed to leave the area safe.

People who may have been affected by asbestos as a result of the
fire have been contacted, and are working with relevant agencies
to mitigate any potential exposure.

The fire has caused an estimated $5 million in damage, however the
cause of the blaze is unknown.

People are asked to report any suspicious behaviour to Police
Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Early Rick Mills from the Department of Fire and Emergency
services said: "Crews are now mopping up the fire. There was some
concerns originally that the roof was asbestos, that has been
confirmed, however there is no threat to the wider community."

The Department of Environment and Regulation Pollution Response
Unit will remain on the scene for the morning to continue
monitoring of the chemicals burnt in the fire.

The blaze belched out plumes of thick smoke which was noticeable
across Myaree and nearby Winthrop, Kardinya and Coolbellup.

Twelve people worked at the shop, which housed many expensive
items such as $1200 tool boxes.

North Lake Road between Leach Highway and McCoy Street remained
closed for much of the morning but all roads were open from about
12.30pm.

Fire officers remained on the site for several hours this morning
and access to affected parts of North Lake Road will be limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judiciary Often Remains Roadblock to Transparency
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reported that the good news about asbestos
legal fraud is that there's a straightforward way to expose it.
The bad news is that the judiciary too often remains the roadblock
to transparency.

According to the report, that's what has been happening in federal
bankruptcy court in North Carolina in the case of Garlock Sealing
Technologies. The gasket manufacturer never had more than
peripheral involvement in the asbestos business, yet it was forced
into bankruptcy in 2010 by a flood of frivolous claims.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are now pushing federal Judge George Hodges
to force Garlock to put some $1.3 billion into a bankruptcy trust
for future asbestos claims, the report related.  Garlock estimates
its liability is closer to $125 million, but the trust gambit is a
plaintiffs' bar favorite to guarantee a perpetual payday. Garlock
also says it has evidence that plaintiffs are "double-dipping" --
filing claims with multiple bankruptcy trusts that blame non-
Garlock products for their diseases, even as they pursue Garlock
in court.

The tort bar is desperate to continue this scam by keeping trust
claims hidden from the public, the report said.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys argued to Judge Hodges that the information Garlock
rooted out about their claims ought to remain "confidential."
Judge Hodges agreed, dismissing Garlock's information as not
"particularly sexy" or of "interest" to the public. He has
repeatedly closed his courtroom when Garlock presented evidence
and expert testimony.

The judge's airy dismissal of a public interest is astonishing. A
handful of other judges have in recent years exposed egregious
cases of double-dipping, inspiring states like Ohio and Oklahoma
to pass laws to force trust disclosure. The House Judiciary
Committee in May passed the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency
(FACT) Act, which would require the nation's 60 asbestos trust
funds -- yes, there are 60 -- to file quarterly reports that
detail claimant names and the basis for their payouts.

Garlock's evidence could be especially revealing given that
lawyers from the firms suing it are on public record denying any
double-dipping even as they have led the campaign against
transparency. Elihu Inselbuch of Caplin & Drysdale testified in
Congress in March against the FACT Act: "The bill also ignores the
fact that despite trying to find instances of widespread fraud and
abuse, there is none. Defendants have no evidence to support their
assertion of fraud by plaintiffs." If Mr. Inselbuch is so
confident there's no fraud, why does he object to transparency?

The public has an interest in reducing fraudulent claims that
deplete funds for legitimate victims, and in saving jobs at
companies that are the casualties of legal malpractice. So the
public has a right to know if attorneys suing Garlock are claiming
one thing in court but another to numerous asbestos bankruptcy
trusts. Judge Hodges ought to unseal the Garlock evidence and
testimony and let the public decide what is "sexy."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing, Cleanup Underway at Selah School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Guerrero, writing for Yakima Herald-Republic, reported that
with classes at the Selah School District starting, John Campbell
Elementary School is undergoing cleanup and testing for asbestos
after small traces were detected earlier in the summer.

According to the report, while its presence may cause concern
among parents, teachers and staff, district and environmental
officials say the hazard is minimal and should be taken care of.

In late June, workers began repairing the roof of the main
building and they eventually noticed material falling from the
roof into the attic space, Superintendent Shane Backlund said, the
report added. Testing of the attic revealed "trace amounts" of
asbestos in the air and work on the roof was stopped, Backlund
added. The asbestos originated from roof felt layered between the
wooden joists of the roof.

Asbestos, when inhaled over a prolonged period of time, can cause
serious damage to the lungs and other organs and is a known
carcinogen, the report related.  The material used to be common in
building insulation and as a fire retardant.

The district hired Yakima-based Fulcrum Environmental Consulting
to test and remove the fibers, the report said. A first test of
the air sample was taken the first week in August and a second
taken this past weekend, said Backlund. While the contaminant was
detected in the attic, none was detected in the classrooms,
offices or hallways.

But to be safe, Backlund said no one is gaining entry into the
building until the all-clear is given by the Yakima Regional Clean
Air Agency. The agency is in charge of overseeing federal and
state air quality regulations in Yakima County with the exception
of the Yakama Nation reservation.

"We're probably being overly cautious," said Backlund, "but we
also don't want to create panic."

Mark Edler, an enforcement officer with the agency, said 11 air
samples were taken in the occupied areas of the building and no
asbestos was found. Edler said he anticipates Fulcrum will be done
with cleaning and testing by the middle of the week.

Both Edler and Clean Air Agency Executive Director Gary Pruitt
agreed the findings at Campbell were not of a "high concern," but
it still needed to be addressed. Any level of asbestos, no matter
how small, must be dealt with.

"Until it's cleaned, nobody goes into the building," said Edler.

Backlund said preparation for the first day of school is not being
disrupted by the main building's temporary closure. Teachers are
still coming in for training and meetings elsewhere in the school,
and school staff are taking calls from concerned parents. Campbell
is comprised of four buildings and two mobile classrooms.

When asked whether classes would start on time, Backlund said he
was sure that would be the case.

The district, though, has to look at all possibilities, he added.

"Anything is possible," he said. "If we still do get test results
with trace results (of asbestos), we're going to sit down, come up
with a contingency plan and figure out what to do next."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. to Hire Second Fibro Inspector
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy MacKaben, writing for The Chicago Tribune, reported that
May Whitney Elementary School will be examined for asbestos by two
inspectors after the Lake Zurich Community Unit School District 95
board responded to concerns from a member about previous
inspections.

According to the report, board member Eileen Maloney wanted to
hire a new inspector to replace Asbestos Inspection and Management
of Elk Grove, which has been working for the district since 1991.
But her fellow board members decided to go with two sets of eyes
for the inspections that are required twice a year at the school
because of its age and presence of asbestos.

"We've had the same set of eyes for a nearly quarter of a century.
It's good to have a second set of eyes," said Maloney, who joined
the board in May, the report related.  "I don't have faith in the
inspections they've conducted. There are red flags to me that pose
significant threats to the building."

Her concerns center around pipes, which she believes have been
damaged by water. Inspections have found leaking roofs and other
pipes than those containing asbestos, with reports consistently
saying the insulation and caulk are in good condition.

"It makes no sense that it's in good condition. That's a
significant shortcoming of the inspection," said Maloney. "I would
like to have a better comfort level that the water intrusion
didn't damage the asbestos-containing pipes. A new set of eyes is
what I'm saying."

Board member Kathy Brown said the current inspector was adequate
and hiring another one would be an unnecessary cost.

"You just used the word significant threats to the occupants. I
think that's pretty alarmist right now," Brown said. "There are
members of the press here and you're making a lot of assumptions.
We need to be careful of what you're assuming and saying. I'm not
saying we can't go get a second of set of eyes, but just do that
before we make assumptions."

Inspections at May Whitney are required in February and August.
This summer, floor tiles containing asbestos were removed in four
classrooms as part of a long-term asbestos abatement plan.

To save the $5,000 to $10,000 for a second inspector, Maloney
suggested the district just hire a new one. "To me, I think it's
silly to pay for it twice. I want a new person to come in and look
at it," she said.

But Brown said, "It seems to me the administration is satisfied by
who they're using now."

"I don't think we want to give up what we have," agreed board
member Tony Pietro. "I think we have momentum with this person. I
would be in favor of another set of eyes."

Lyle Erstad, director of facilities and grounds, said he would
obtain an estimate for hiring a second inspector.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Lead Removal at Former Bath School
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lear, writing for The Forecaster, reported that removal of
asbestos and lead from Donald Small School, expected to last until
mid-September, will keep Bath Community Television off the air
from Sept. 6-16.

According to the report, the former school, built 50 years ago,
houses both Bath Community Television and the Bath Recreation
Department. The latter will remain open, according to a press
release, and is expected to move to the top floor during the
abatement process, which began Aug. 12.

The project includes removing and disposing of building materials
that contain asbestos, as well as replacing abated building
materials and partial abating of lead-based paint found on
exterior window casings.

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Revolving Loan
Fund Subgrant, which uses funding the city received from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is paying for nearly the
entire project, which costs a little more than $180,000, according
to Justin Poirier, Bath's director of community development.

With the funds available until the end of September, the city
opted to use them for the Donald Small School, which had already
been assessed for contaminants.

"There's no real current risk to anybody in the building," Poirier
said, noting that the work will come in handy in the future if
anyone wants to renovate or change the configuration of the
building.

"We won't have this as an impediment," he said.

Once the project is complete, the building will have new floors,
which will include a multi-purpose floor in the gymnasium.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prairie Hill Landfill Fibro Ban May See End
------------------------------------------------------------
David Giuliani, writing for Sauk Valley, reported that earlier
this summer, Whiteside County officials considered ending the ban
on asbestos in its landfill.  For now, they are holding off after
discovering the process was more involved than originally thought.

According to the report, the issue came up when Prophetstown,
which is demolishing the part of downtown that a fire destroyed
last month, asked to send asbestos to the county landfill, known
formally as the Prairie Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility.

The Prophetstown City Council approved a contract to clear the
rubble, the report added.

The landfill's original 1992 permit bans asbestos, which is
considered a hazardous material.

In July, the County Board's Landfill Committee discussed whether
it should be allowed.

Mike Wiersema, the landfill's manager, told members that most
landfills accept such materials, but added that one of the
stipulations of the siting process was that the local landfill
would not take asbestos, according to the meeting's minutes. But
he assured the panel that the local landfill could safely accept
asbestos.

The county's health department reported it preferred asbestos be
brought to the landfill and handled properly, the minutes say.

At the board's Executive Committee meeting this month, County
Administrator Joel Horn said the county could take steps to lift
the restriction but wouldn't do so in time to help Prophetstown to
dispose of its demolition debris.

Executive Committee members agreed to have the Landfill Committee
address the asbestos issue for future needs.

County Engineer Russ Renner said the process to change the permit
would take awhile.

"There would be a lot to go through," he said. "It wouldn't be
done in just a few days."

Instead, Prophetstown could take its asbestos to the Lee County
Landfill, which accepts asbestos, Renner said. But it would be
more than twice the distance -- from 12 miles to 32 miles.

Renner said the County Board may discuss the asbestos issue at its
meeting.

The Whiteside County landfill is expected to fill to capacity in
20 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Storage Plan for Gorseinon Site
------------------------------------------------------
Jason Evans, This is South Wales, reported that a new asbestos
storage unit could be on the way to Gorseinon.

According to the report, the proposed development involves
facilities for the storage of up to 10 tonnes of asbestos waste on
Garngoch Industrial Estate.

Swansea Council planners have recommended the scheme be given the
green light, and councillors are due to vote on the issue, the
report added.

The applicants, Phoenix Asbestos Recovery Ltd, want to operate the
Gorseinon Road site as a transfer business, taking mainly small
amounts of waste from the likes of domestic boilers, tiles and
asbestos roof sheets and storing them until they can be taken away
for disposal.

As part of the plan, Phoenix want to construct a new single-story
building, around 80ft by 40ft, to house the waste inside sealed
containers.

The firm also wants to build a 27-space car park.  Council
planners are recommending the scheme be given the go-ahead,
concluding "the proposal is considered an appropriate form of
development that will have a limited impact upon amenity,
transportation, visual amenity, public safety and has an
acceptable relationship with adjoining land uses."

The proposed operation of the unit -- on the former JD (Furs) site
-- would involve up six delivery vans a day delivering the wrapped
asbestos waste, with a weekly lorry collection to take the
accumulated material to a suitable disposal site.

As part of the planning process Swansea Council has been required
to conduct what is known as a habitat regulations assessment to
gauge any possible impact on water quality in the nearby Burry
Inlet and the wider Carmarthen Bay, and has concluded that the
development will "not be likely to have a significant effect".
Neither Welsh Water nor Gorseinon Town Council have raised
objection to the plans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Former Shipyard Worker's Lungs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The North-west Evening Mail reported that a former shipyard worker
died of a combination of natural causes and industrial disease ,
an inquest heard.

According to the report, Brian Rigg, 71, passed away at his home
on St Vincent Street, Barrow, on March 31.  He suffered from a
number of health problems including a heart attack and a blood
clot prior to his death. Asbestos particles were also found in his
lungs, the report related.  Assistant deputy coroner Alan Sharp
ruled that the cause of death was a combination of three natural
causes -- heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
diffuse pulmonary fibrosis -- and industrial disease.

Mr Sharp said: "The cause of Mr Rigg's death was natural causes
contributed by an industrial disease. It is clear from the post
mortem report that there were asbestos bodies found.

"It is common knowledge workers in the Barrow shipyard were
exposed to asbestos when working there."

Mr Rigg's brother, Michael, told the inquest at Barrow Town Hall
that he worked in the shipyard for over 40 years, retiring in
2001.

Pathologist Muammer Al-Mudhaffer said tiny remnants of asbestos
were found in Mr Rigg's lungs.  His heart was also found to be
enlarged -- a common side-effect of infections to the lung.

"The asbestos exposure weakened the heart," Mr Al-Mudhaffer
concluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Yorkshire Fibro Exposure Plea
----------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that diseases potentially caused by the presence
of asbestos in South Yorkshire workplaces are being investigated
by solicitors.

According to the report, witnesses are being sought by Thrings, on
behalf of clients whose relatives later contracted asbestos-
related illnesses.

One is the daughter of the former clerk of works at Sheffield
Regional Hospital Board and Trent Regional Health Authority from
the mid 1960s until the early 1980s, the report related.

A claim is being made on behalf of her late mother, who died from
asbestos-related mesothelioma.

Solicitor James Trescothwick-Martin, from Thrings, said: "It is
thought exposure to asbestos occurred as a result of the husband's
work.

"As part of his job he had to supervise various different
projects.

"He would then take the dust home with him where his wife washed
his clothes and inhaled the asbestos fibres which had settled on
them as a result of his work.

"We are looking in particular at Doncaster Royal Infirmary, the
Sheffield Blood Transfusion Centre, the then new Barnsley District
General Hospital and works at the Northern General Hospital in Fir
Vale."

The company is also investigating the construction of Sheffield's
Parkway ambulance station, Monk Bretton Health Centre, the
building of Thurnscoe Health Centre and the Northern General
residential block.

And it is studying a case involving a Sheffield worker who may
have been exposed to asbestos while employed at a silversmiths in
the city centre in the late 1960s to around 1982-83.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Warragul Kindergarten
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Twomey, writing for Weekly Times Now, reported that a
Warragul kindergarten is temporarily closed after asbestos was
found on the site.

According to the report, the asbestos was found in three separate
locations at the Warragul Community Kindergarten on Mouritz St
over the weekend when expansion works were taking place.

Specialists removed the asbestos from one of the locations but the
site will remain closed until the asbestos can be removed from the
remaining two locations, the report related.

The Baw Baw Shire Council said the two sites were not intact and
were not near the active part of the centre where there were
children and staff -- so no one was put at risk.

"To mitigate any chance of inadvertent exposure during the ongoing
renovations it was deemed in the best interest of everyone to
suspend kinder activities at the site until this additional
asbestos could be removed," the shire said in a statement.

The council is working with the builder, the site supervisor and
an independent asbestos assessor to remove the asbestos as quickly
as possible and it is anticipated children will return to kinder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fear at Darwen Allotments
------------------------------------------------
Dan Clough, writing for Lancashire Telegraph, reported that plots
at a town's only 'allotment' site will not be let out because of
asbestos fears, a council has said.

According to the report, Blackburn with Darwen Council bosses have
closed the Harwood Street Garden Area in Darwen to new tenants,
saying it could be contaminated with asbestos.

The land which sits between Harwood Street and Tockholes Road,
features a large number of empty and neglected plots, leaving some
potential users frustrated, the report related.

One Prospect Avenue resident said he had been on the waiting list
for seven years and had complained to the council, the report
said.  He said: "I have wanted one for years to grow fruit and
vegetables with my children.

"But the council have said they won't let any more people on
there.

"I have been told there is asbestos in three plots, but 11 are
empty. It just doesn't seem fair."

The Lancashire Telegraph has been shown a letter responding to the
man's complaints.

As well as confirming there are fears that asbestos could be
present, it also refers to a 'comprehensive property review',
suggesting the council may consider disposing of the site, or part
of it.

The letter, signed by Laura Fish, of the property management and
development department at Capita, said: "We unfortunately have had
to closed the Tockholes Road site to new tenants.

"This is both because of the asbestos and the fact that a
comprehensive property review of the garden area is scheduled to
take place.

"It would not be appropriate to allow anyone on to the plots and
incur costs when we do not know the outcome of the review and
council members have not made decisions.

"Similarly, the costs to do a full site survey to identify where
asbestos is present is considerably high in a time when the
council needs to control expenditure.

"While the asbestos isn't being disturbed, therefore minimising
risk, the sensible option would be to await the outcome of the
review, when a decision can be made as to the course of action the
council wishes to take."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury Fibro Victim Plead for Help in Pay Battle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester Evening News reported that a retired mill worker who is
dying from an asbestos-related cancer is urging former colleagues
to help his compensation fight.

According to the report, grandfather-of-three David Barnes, 81, is
suffering from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer caused by inhaling
asbestos dust.  He wants former colleagues to provide information
about the environment in two textile mills where he worked.

Mr Barnes, from Bury , says asbestos was used extensively in the
boiler rooms, but he was never given any warnings about its
dangers or provided with a face mask, the report related.  He
said: "This disease has had a dreadful effect on my life.

"I am virtually housebound and can no longer care for my wife
Pamela, who herself has a heart condition and finds it difficult
to do very much around the house.

"It is so frustrating to know that, had I been told of the dangers
of asbestos by my employer and given just a simple mask for use in
dangerous areas, I would not be suffering now as I am."

Mr Barnes worked in clerical and sales at two mills in Heywood and
Oldham owned by a company called I&J Hyman Ltd, which is no longer
operating. He fell ill in October last year, when he developed a
cough and noticed he was often short of breath.  He was given
antibiotics for a chest infection but they made no difference and
after a  few weeks he was referred to hospital, where he was found
to have a collapsed lung.

Further tests revealed he had mesothelioma that was inoperable,
malignant and incurable.

The pensioner is urging former colleagues to contact his
solicitor, Patrick Walsh at Manchester law firm Pannone, to tell
them about conditions at the two mills. He said: "I would be so
grateful if any of my old colleagues or people could get in
contact." Asbestos-related cancer is most likely to be work
related.

Mr Walsh, a specialist in cases involving industrial diseases,
said: "I&J Hyman Ltd had mills on Adelaide Street, in Heywood, and
on Derker Street, in Oldham.

"Both mills had large boiler rooms where we believe asbestos
lagging was used and it seems there was asbestos lagged piping
elsewhere in the mill.

"I would be extremely interested to talk to anyone who worked at
either Hyman mill at any time from the 1950s to the 1980s."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dubai Residents Fear Deadly Dust Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Vesela Todorova and Mohammed Al Khan, writing for The National,
reported that families in a government compound in Al Satwa are
living with hazardous asbestos, exposed by demolition work on car
park roofs at homes built for police personnel.

According to the report, while the roofs were built before the
nation's ban on the material came into force seven years ago,
workers appear not to be following the regulations for its
removal, putting their own health and that of residents at risk.
Residents at the compound said they had not been warned that the
demolition works posed any risks to their health.

One resident, who identified himself only as Abu Faris, said his
family had to wash their cars twice daily because of the dust, the
report related.

"If we can see it on the cars that means we are breathing it," the
father of two said, the report further related.

Asbestos cement, a once popular building material, has been banned
in more than 60 countries.

When disturbed, tiny fibres become airborne and can penetrate deep
into people's lungs.

Removing the material should be carried out using techniques that
minimise the chances of fibres becoming airborne. But during a
visit to the site on July 26, some of the old roofing was seen
crushed and mixed with other building waste.

A second visit, on August 13, found a similar situation. While
much of the rubble had been cleared, pieces of asbestos were still
clearly visible mixed with the general waste.

The waste was being scooped up by an excavator, the operator of
which was not wearing a mask. A bed had been set up next to a heap
of crushed asbestos.

The site was just metres away from the rest of the compound, where
some families are still living.

An asbestos removal expert who visited the site said the way the
demolition was being handled risked the health of workers and the
public.

"It is always preferable to remove asbestos prior to demolition,"
said the expert.

"Typically this is carried out by a specialist asbestos removal
contractor, who has trained and competent staff, experience in
safe asbestos removal, control measures and appropriate personal
and respiratory protective equipment."

There were no barriers preventing members of the public from
entering the demolition site.

"When asbestos materials are damaged or disturbed they release
asbestos fibres into the air," the expert said.

"Given the proximity of the buildings to the demolition, the fact
that asbestos materials are being demolished by an excavator and
without any dust-suppression control measures, there is a risk of
asbestos exposure to local residents, members of the public and
the workers involved in the demolition."

Exposure to asbestos can cause a reaction with symptoms similar to
those of pneumonia. Exposure over many years can lead to lung
scarring, pleural disease and lung cancer.

Ibtissam Othman, whose house is just metres from the debris, said
the demolition dust had bothered her and her family. But she had
not heard of asbestos or the risks associated. Neither had her
neighbour, Hamed Rashid.

"Two years ago a lot of nearby buildings were demolished," Mr
Rashid said. "No one told us about the risk."

The contractor carrying out the work said the claims would be
investigated.

Mr ME Ayoob, managing partner of World Wide Building and
Demolition, said: "The asbestos sheets are generally transported
to our warehouses in Sharjah for careful disposal. This instance
seems to be an exception.

"We are looking into the matter, and ensuring that our teams take
all the necessary steps to maintain the highest safety standards."

A spokesman for the site's developer, Meraas, said: "Any
contractors who prove not to be adhering to required safety
standards will be considered for black-listing from Meraas future
projects."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Dumped in Carlton
---------------------------------------------
Maria Galinovic, writing for St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader,
reported that Jason Farhat of Waterview Street, Carlton, saw a ute
speeding off from a factory at the end of the street, having
dumped a large pile of asbestos.

"I called the police and the fire brigade to have it removed," Mr
Farhat told the news agency.

"The asbestos was dumped near houses and on a route that local
kids take to get to Blakehurst High School."

He said police and Hazmat (NSW Fire & Rescue) secured the site but
did not remove the asbestos immediately.

Mr Farhat said dumping was common in that area as it was semi-
industrial and poorly lit.

"We often see skid marks down the road as cars dump and take off
during the night," he said.

"I know that surveillance cameras are expensive but if we had
proper lighting it might act as a deterrent.

"The section of Waterview Street between Woids and Planthurst is a
constant dumping ground -- the council has been very inactive to
protect residents."

A Kogarah Council spokeswoman stressed that the incident in
Waterview Street was on private property and therefore was not the
council's clean-up responsibility.

However, the council was in the process of investigating this
illegal dumping on private property having obtained CCTV footage
from someone nearby.

"To date, NSW Fire & Rescue has attended the scene and secured the
dumped material until it is cleared," she said.

"There were also two further incidents of illegal asbestos dumping
on public land (a footpath and a laneway) in the Carlton area over
the weekend.

"Council is investigating these incidents and the possibility that
they are linked to the incident in Waterview Street. Council has
removed the material from both of those sites."

What can be done to stop dumping?


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Hit With $5.95MM Cancer Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Online reported that the Dow Chemical Company was found
liable on all counts in a civil lawsuit filed in Louisiana state
court relating to its use of asbestos and allegedly causing cancer
in its workers. The case was decided by a Plaquemine, Louisiana
jury. Dow Chemical's Louisiana division is headquartered in
Plaquemine, LA. The Dow Plaquemine Plant is the largest chemical
plant in the petro-chemical industry rich state.

According to the report, the lawsuit alleged that exposures to
asbestos at Dow Chemical caused Sidney Mabile's terminal asbestos
cancer, mesothelioma. Mabile's attorneys alleged in the suit that
Dow has exposed thousands of workers to asbestos, and that Mabile
is only one of hundreds of future asbestos cancer victims also
exposed at Dow.

Court documents revealed that Dow has continued to use tons of raw
asbestos in its chemical manufacturing facilities throughout the
world. "Most chemical companies abandoned using asbestos decades
ago. But Dow continues to use the notorious carcinogen in plants
throughout the world because the processing is roughly ten percent
less expensive with asbestos than with asbestos-free
alternatives," said attorney John Langdoc of Baron and Budd.

Internal Dow documents showed that Dow lobbied to oppose the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ban of asbestos. Court
documents suggested that Dow performed a "cost per cancer"
analysis and determined that it would cost Dow over $1.2 billion
to switch all of its plants to non-asbestos processing methods.
Dow was successful in lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency
to allow Dow to continue using raw asbestos in its United States
chemical plants. Dow has continued to fight the ban of asbestos in
other countries. The European Trade Union Confederation explains
that an "[o]pposition to a blanket asbestos ban now seems to come
only from Dow Chemicals."

Baron and Budd, a law firm with a long history of representing
states, cities, and individual environmental and occupational
cancer victims, represented Mabile. Mesothelioma attorney John
Langdoc represented Mabile at trial. Dow was represented at trial
by a team of lawyers lead by Baton Rouge attorney David Bienvenu
of Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC. "Dow fought
this case with all of its legal might, and we are relieved that
the jury was able to see Dow for what it is: a company that chose
to make more money over protecting its workers from carcinogens.
Mr. Mabile holds hope that this verdict will lead to a change at
Dow, and that it will stop using asbestos before even more workers
are diagnosed with cancers," said Langdoc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Baucus Brings Medicare Official to Libby
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Devlin, writing for The Missoulian, reported that Marilyn
Tavenner has a picture of Lester Skramstad on her desk in
Washington, D.C., even though she's never met him -- not in this
life, anyway -- and never will.

Tavenner, barely four months into her tenure as the nation's top
administrator for an $820 billion federal agency, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, stood at Skramstad's grave in the
Libby Cemetery on a beautiful August morning with U.S. Sen. Max
Baucus, D-Mont, the report related.

Skramstad is one of an estimated 3,000 victims of asbestos-related
illnesses stemming from a vermiculite mine once operated in Libby
by W.R. Grace & Co. -- and one of more than 400 who have died
because of it, the report said.

"Max wanted her to meet his friend Les," said Gayla Benefield, one
of Libby's many asbestos victims, who organized the cemetery
portion of Tavenner's visit, the report further related.
Benefield's father, Perley Vatland, worked in the mine for 19
years, was diagnosed in 1971 and died in 1974.

Like Skramstad, who died in 2007, Vertland unknowingly dragged the
deadly dust home from work with him -- as did many of the miners
-- and infected his family, the report noted.

Baucus met Skramstad over huckleberry pie and coffee in
Benefield's home in 2000, where about 20 local people "described
the awful legacy of W.R. Grace," according to Baucus' office. The
senator calls his meeting Skramstad a pivotal moment in his
decision to champion the cause of Libby victims in the years
since.

                           *     *     *

It was Baucus who gave Tavenner the picture of Skramstad in May,
Baucus who grilled Tavenner about Medicare holding up other
victims' settlement payments during her confirmation hearings that
same month, and Baucus who engineered her first-ever trip to
Montana.

"The first time I met Senator Baucus, (Libby) was one of the first
things we discussed," Tavenner said.

Montana's senior senator, who will not seek a seventh term in
2014, has hauled everyone from White House Cabinet secretaries to
the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to Libby so they
could see firsthand what happened to this town.

"The U.S. government is so big that things get lost in the
shuffle, things get high-centered," Baucus, chairman of the Senate
Committee on Finance, said later at lunch at the Libby Caf‚. "You
have to focus on it relentlessly. Libby is a small part of our
state, a small part of our country, but it's a big, big need.

"You have to keep your eye on the ball, keep bugging people about
health care, about getting people screened, about getting this
cleaned up. These people deserve justice."

Libby asbestos victims receive health care coverage under Medicare
due to a provision Baucus wrote in the Affordable Care Act.

One of Baucus' goals with Tavenner's visit is to convince her to
expand additional Medicare benefits to victims who have moved out
of the area. The pilot program pays for expenses Medicare normally
denies, but only victims living in Lincoln and Flathead counties
currently qualify.

Libby asbestos victims who no longer live in either county can't
receive the special home care services, special medical equipment,
help with travel to get care, special counseling, nutritional
supplements and prescription drugs not covered by Medicare drug
plans.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the authority
to change that.

                           *     *     *

Tavenner indicated the change would come, and within months, not
years.

"Certainly before the end of the year," she said. "I have a
feeling the chairman will make sure I do."

After hearing from Benefield and other asbestos victims and
survivors of victims at the cemetery, Tavenner visited the Centers
for Asbestos Related Disease Clinic in Libby.

"I've heard from the families, now I want to hear the clinical
side," said Tavenner, a nurse by training. "I want to get their
feedback. Are they getting what they need?"

Baucus was pleased that a backlog in CMS cases that had held up
settlement payments from W.R. Grace for victims has largely
vanished in the four months since Tavenner took over.

Medicare had to collect its qualifying expenses from the
settlements before victims could be paid.

"What's tragic is some folks died before they got their payments,"
Baucus said, "but the backlog is almost down to zero."

                           *     *     *

In addition to learning about asbestos-related issues, Tavenner
used her day in Libby to visit the Lincoln County Community Health
Center and find out how implementation of the Affordable Care Act
-- better known as "Obamacare" -- is working for a rural clinic.

"It's important for folks in Washington to get out from behind
their desks and see what's working, and what isn't, on the ground
in places like rural Montana," said Baucus, a primary architect of
the legislation.

Montana has 17 community health centers that served 99,000
patients last year, almost half of whom did not have health
insurance. The Libby center served 6,000 patients in 2012
according to Baucus' office, or more than 30 percent of Lincoln
County's total population.

But for many people in this county, of course, health care
revolves around asbestos-related disease. Lester Skramstad,
Benefield said, spent only two years working in the mine in the
1950s.

In the years after Skramstad was diagnosed, his wife and four of
his five children were, too.

Brent Skramstad is buried behind his father's grave in the Libby
Cemetery. He died of asbestos-related disease in 2009, at the age
of 51.

When she helped put up white crosses in the cemetery in 2005 to
mark the graves of all the people who died because of the
vermiculite, Benefield said 265 were needed.

"Now it'd take more than 400," she said. "My parents' generation
have all died, now we have ones in their 20s coming through and
being diagnosed. That's my grandchildren's generation -- that's
four generations."

Libby CARD Clinic officials report approximately 40 new cases of
asbestos-related disease per month.

That's why Baucus said he keeps Skramstad's picture in his office,
and gives the same picture to high-ranking federal officials such
as Tavenner.

"It reminds me of Libby," he said, "and it reminds me why we have
these jobs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Changes Proposed to Help Victims Seeking Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that law changes to make it simpler for home
asbestos victims to seek compensation have been tabled in
Parliament.

According to the report, the amendments would reform common law
compensation for asbestos victims and their families not covered
by workers compensation, which would include home renovators.

The President of the Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation, Simon
Cocker, says areas of the law which need improvement include
compensation levels and time limitations to apply for damages, the
report added.

Mr Cocker says companies for decades used asbestos material in
Tasmanian housing when they knew it was a health risk.

"Tasmania has had a number of people die and suffer due to
asbestos illness," he said.

"We know that there is going to be more and we think that the
system should deliver fair and reasonable compensation to these
people, and it hasn't."

Mr Cocker says it is important people who are exposed to asbestos
in the home are given fair compensation.

"People have been poisoned by asbestos for 40 years in Tasmania
and it's only fair and reasonable that they should have access to
common law compensation if they don't have a workers compensation
claim."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portslade Homeowner Left Holding Fibro Pile
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Leo, writing for The Argus, reported that a homeowner has been
left with bags of lethal asbestos after a refuse and recycling
centre refused to take all her waste.

According to the report, Natalie Andrews, 44, from Portslade, had
amassed around 100 bags of the dangerous substance after
renovating the roof of her new home in Mile Oak Road.  She claimed
that after following instructions on the Brighton and Hove City
Council website, she filled each bag with asbestos-ridden roof
tiles and double bagged them ahead of a visit to the tip in Hove.
But on arrival at the refuse and recycling site off Old Shoreham
Road, she was told by workers she could only get rid of six bags
each month.

Miss Andrews said: "Consequently we have dangerous material now
just sitting in our front garden.

"I think it's ludicrous. We had around 100 bags of tiles to
dispose of but on visiting the dump we were informed they will
only accept six bags every month.

"We are not a company and even showed proof of this at the tip.

"We only want to dispose of this in the right way. We pay our
council tax and surely have a right to dump things at the tip as
and when we need to.

"Is this what the council think is promoting a healthy environment
and discouraging fly tipping?"

Miss Andrews also claimed the refuse staff were unhelpful.

She added: "They didn't even help me carry the bags and lift them
into the bin which was very difficult as I am 44, a size 8 and
5ft3ins."

Breathing in air containing asbestos fibres can lead to
asbestosis, lung cancer and other diseases.  It has been illegal
to use asbestos in construction work since the 1970s, but can
still be found in properties built before then.

A spokesman from Brighton and Hove City Council said: "We take the
disposal of hazardous materials very seriously.

"It is essential that builders quote for the removal of all waste
-- especially any large quantities of asbestos.

"The rules are designed so that commercial quantities of asbestos
are not passed through the domestic waste system, for taxpayers to
pick up the disposal costs.

"Otherwise builders would be offering cheap deals to householders
if they agree to take building waste to the domestic tip.

"We advise householders to check trading standards' Buy With
Confidence pages to find reputable contractors."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Defendants Named in Fayetteville PI Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a
Fayetteville man and his mother are suing 39 companies they claim
caused his father's death.

According to the report, Danny Ray Kincaid Sr. was diagnosed with
lung cancer in April 2012, from which he died on June 15, 2012,
according to a complaint filed July 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Jesse E. Kincaid and Mary C. Kincaid claim Danny Kincaid smoked 2
packs per day from 1966 until 1997, but then quit, the report
related.

Danny Kincaid was exposed to asbestos during his employment as a
crane operator and dust collector technician from 1973 until 2008,
according to the suit.

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

The plaintiffs claim certain defendants are also being sued as
premises owners and as Danny Kincaid's employers for deliberate
intent/intentional tort.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved. They are being represented by Victoria Antion Nelson,
Anne McGinness Kearse and Scott A. McGee of Motley Rice LLC.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

A.W. Chesterton Company; Caterpillar Inc.; Certainteed
Corporation; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Crane Co.; Dravo
Corporation; Eaton Electrical Inc.; Elkem Chemicals Inc.; Elkem
Materials Inc.; and Elkem Metals Company -- Alloy LP were some of
the 39 defendants named in the suit.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-1438


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO Insurance Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Walter E. Campbell Company -- a Maryland Corporation
with its principal place of business in Maryland -- filed an
action against eight diverse corporations, and Property and
Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation -- another Maryland
Corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland.
WECCO originally filed its complaint in Superior Court for the
District of Columbia.  In the Superior Court, PCIGC moved to
dismiss all claims against it or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

With the consent of PCIGC, the other eight defendants then removed
the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on February 11, 2013, under the theory that WECCO had fraudulently
joined PCIGC to the action in order to sever complete diversity
and prevent jurisdiction in the federal court system.  In the
District Court, six of the defendants have moved to dismiss the
action or, in the alternative, for a stay pending the resolution
of a related action in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland.  WECCO has now moved to remand the action
back to the Superior Court.

The complaint alleges that for many decades, WECCO handled,
installed, disturbed, removed, and sold asbestos-containing
insulation material.  The Defendants are insurance companies that
either themselves provided, or guaranteed other now-insolvent
insurance companies that had provided, liability insurance to
WECCO.  The sole cause of action in the complaint before the
District Court arises from an insurance dispute between WECCO and
defendants concerning coverage for bodily injury and wrongful
death lawsuits that have been filed against WECCO alleging
exposure to asbestos during WECCO's work.

Because the District Court finds that the Defendants have not met
their burden of proving that WECCO fraudulently joined PCIGC as a
defendant to defeat diversity jurisdiction in the federal courts,
the District Court ruled that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter and, therefore, remanded the action to the
Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

The case is WALTER E. CAMPBELL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-0181 (ABJ) (D.D.C.).  A full-text copy of the memorandum
opinion issued by Judge Amy Berman Jackson dated Aug. 13, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/YfPv1Xfrom Leagle.com.

WALTER E. CAMPBELL COMPANY, Plaintiff, is represented by Steven A.
Luxton, Esq. -- sluxton@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP.

HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, is represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Esq. -- eparks@goodwin.com -- and James
Pio Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- at SHIPMAN & GOODWIN,
LLP.

GENERAL INSURANCE, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin R.
Dryden, Esq. -- bdryden@foley.com -- and Lori Allison Rubin, Esq.
-- larubin@foley.com -- at FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP.

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendants, are represented by Prashant Kumar Khetan, Esq. --
prashant.khetan@troutmansanders.com -- at TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, are represented by Jacob C. Cohn, Esq. --
jcohn@gordonrees.com -- Jennifer Winter Persico, Esq. --
jpersico@gordonrees.com -- and William P. Shelley, Esq. --
wshelley@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON & REES, LLP.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, is
represented by Harry Lee, Esq. -- hlee@steptoe.com -- at STEPTOE &
JOHNSON LLP.

PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Robert DeCaro, Esq. --
jdecaro@decarodoran.com -- at DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER
& DEBLASIS, LLP, and John C. Sullivan, Esq. --
jsullivan@postschell.com -- at POST & SCHELL, P.C..

PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant,
represented by Albert J. Mezzanotte, Esq. --
jmezzanotte@wtplaw.com -- and John J. Hathway, Esq. --
jhathway@wtplaw.com -- at WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants UCC's Bid to Junk "Cisler" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment
dismissing an asbestos-related complaint and all cross-claims
asserted against it on the ground that there is no evidence to
show that plaintiff John Cisler was exposed to asbestos
manufactured, distributed, or supplied by UCC.

The case is JOHN E. CISLER and CAROL CISLER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190044/12, MOTION SEQ. 003 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision dated Aug. 8, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/YVvgq3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Acevedo" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
entered a decision and order dated Aug. 8, 2013, denying Crane
Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related
personal injury complaint and all other claims asserted against it
on the ground that the plaintiffs have not shown that plaintiff
Luis Acevedo was exposed to asbestos from working on or around any
products manufactured by Crane of which plaintiffs complain.

The case is LUIS ACEVEDO and SUSAN ACEVEDO, Plaintiff, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
116194/02, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/OC1KwLfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farell's Bid to Dismiss "Taveniere" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action involving a veteran of the
U.S. Navy, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New
York County, denied defendant Farrell Lines Incorporated's motion
for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all other claims
asserted against it, holding that summary judgment is a drastic
remedy which should not be granted where there is doubt as to the
existence of a triable issue of fact.  Judge Hietler ordered the
parties to the case to prompt coordinate their discovery.

The case is WARREN W. TAVENIERE, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPORT
LINES f/k/a FARRELL LINES INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, DOCKET
NO. 107016/08, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Heitler's Decision dated Aug. 6, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/s906vffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Zurich Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
More than four years after defendant Zurich American Insurance
Company denied coverage for an asbestos-related claim, plaintiff
Woodcliff Lake Board of Education asked Zurich to re-evaluate the
claim, stating its loss was caused by vandalism.  The Board
appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor
of Zurich.

In a decision dated Aug. 14, 2013, a three-judge panel of the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the
trial court's decision, holding that vandalism is not defined in
the policy issued by Zurich to the Board.  The Superior Court said
there is no evidence of any trespasser coming onto the property to
wreak havoc with the asbestos.  The Superior Court agreed with the
trial judge that the available evidence fails to show that the
disturbance was the result of any malicious act, whether by a
contractor or anyone else.  The lack of that evidentiary support
for a conclusion that vandalism caused the disturbance is so
glaring that it would require the Superior Court to adopt a "far-
fetched interpretation of [the] policy exclusion" to conclude that
this loss was caused by vandalism and therefore covered by the
Policy.  Viewing the language, which the Superior Court found
unambiguous, and the surrounding circumstances, the Superior Court
concluded that the pollution exclusion applied and barred coverage
here.

The case is WOODCLIFF LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-
Respondent, NO. A-5772-11T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).  A full-text
copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/7IfNgGfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen R. Fogarty, Esq., and Cameron R. Morgan, Esq., at Fogarty
& Hara, argued the cause for appellant.  The firm may be reached
at:

         FOGARTY & HARA, ESQS.
         16-00 Route 208 South
         Fair Lawn, New Jersey 07410
         Tel: (201) 791-3340

Karen H. Moriarty, Esq. -- kmoriarty@coughlinduffy.com -- and
Robert W. Muilenburg, Esq. -- rmuilenburg@coughlinduffy.com -- at
Coughlin Duffy, LLP, argued the cause for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Not Allowed to Recover Excess Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the death of her husband from asbestos-related pulmonary
disease, plaintiff Armethia Lively filed suit for workers'
compensation benefits.  Because her husband had previously settled
a disability claim for 400 weeks of benefits, the employer denied
the claim.  The trial court awarded the funeral expenses of the
husband but declined to grant benefits to the plaintiff as his
dependent over and above the amount of the settlement.  Her appeal
has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals
Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and
conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51.
Although the Plaintiff may make a separate claim for benefits, she
is not entitled to any recovery beyond funeral expenses because
the amount of her entitlement, as controlled by the date of her
husband's injury, would not be in excess of the amount of his
settlement.  The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The case is Armethia D. Lively Ex Rel. Robert E. Lively v. UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION, NO. E2012-02136-WC-RJ-WC (Tenn.).  A full-
text copy of the opinion, penned by Chief Justice Gary R. Wade of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, dated Aug. 13, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/pqOxzZfrom Leagle.com.

Appellant, Armethia D. Lively, is represented by:

         B. Chadwick Rickman, Esq.
         LORING JUSTICE
         11911 Kingston Pike
         Knoxville, TN 37934
         Tel: 865.584.8620

Kristi McKinney Stogsdill, Esq., in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the
appellee, Union Carbide Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Widow's Appeal in PI Suit v. Slakey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff and appellant Rebecca Lee David, individually and as
successor-in-interest to James Lester David, appeals a judgment
following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and
respondent Slakey Brothers, Inc.  The Plaintiffs contends the
summary judgment must be reversed due to procedural and
evidentiary errors, and in any event, the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment due to the presence of triable issues of
material fact.  At the time of the summary judgment hearing,
decedent lay dying of mesothelioma.

In a decision dated Aug. 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Three, concluded that the
trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the
decedent's opposing declaration on the ground it was unsigned, in
that by the time of the hearing on the motion for summary
judgment, the Plaintiffs had submitted a signed copy of the
opposing declaration.  Further, the decedent's opposing
declaration was sufficient to raise a triable issue of material
fact as to whether decedent had been exposed to asbestos-
containing products supplied by Slakey, the Court of Appeals
ruled.  Therefore, the judgment is reversed.

The case is JAMES LESTER DAVID et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B244802
(Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/xnYw3kfrom Leagle.com.

Keller, Fishback & Jackson lawyers Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. --
sfishback@kflegal.com -- and Daniel L. Keller, Esq. --
dkeller@kfjlegal.com -- and Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier's and
Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard lawyers Richard L. Reynolds,
Esq., Lauren E. Powe, Esq., and ; Selman Breitman lawyers A. Scott
Goldberg, Esq. -- sgoldberg@selmanbreitman.com -- and Jeffrey W.
Deane, Esq. -- jdeane@selmanbreitman.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.

Bennett Samuelsen may be reached at:

         BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD
         1301 Marina Village Parkway Suite 300
         Alameda, CA 94501-1084
         Tel: 510-444-7688
         Fax: 510-444-5849


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Meriden's Bid to Junk "Walker" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Meriden Molded Plastics, Inc., seeks dismissal of an
asbestos personal injury action against it for lack of personal
jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to duly
serve the Defendant with the summons and complaint.  Meriden
further moves to dismiss on the ground that the Plaintiff failed
to commence proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year
after Meriden failed to answer the Plaintiffs' complaint.  The
Plaintiffs argue that pursuant to Section VI(E) of the NYC
Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order, they properly
effectuated service upon Meriden on April 9, 2013 via an amended
complaint.  The Plaintiffs also cross-move to extend the time
within which to serve the summons and complaint upon Meriden.

In a decision and order dated Aug. 6, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Meriden's
motion to dismiss, finding that the circumstances weigh in favor
of an extension of time to serve Meriden under both the "good
cause" and "interest of justice" standards.  The Plaintiffs'
attempts to serve the Defendant, although ultimately defective,
were diligent, Judge Heitler ruled.

The case is MURRAY N. WALKER, SR. and BARBARA WALKER, Plaintiffs,
v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190433/11, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 016 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/vCzP6Mfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses False Claims Act Suit v. EMSL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Relator Ping Chen filed an action against Defendants
EMSL Analytical, Inc., The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Taylor
Environmental Group, Inc., J.C. Broderick & Associates Inc.,
Hillman Environmental Co, Inc. and Hillman Environmental Group,
L.L.C., Airtek Environmental Corp., Liro Engineers, Inc., McCabe
Environmental Services, L.L.C., ATC Associates, Inc., JLC
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Detail Associates, Ambient Group,
Inc., Warren & Panzer, Engineers, P.C., and Consulting & Testing
Services, Inc.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, all of
which operate in the asbestos air testing industry, violated the
federal False Claims Act and its state and local counterparts.

The Plaintiff alleges that "[i]n order to obtain favorable testing
reports," the Air Monitoring Defendants "for many years . . .
fraudulently provided countless fake air samples, namely, blank
cassettes, to environmental testing service companies, such as
EMSL, for testing."  These "fake" samples "would definitely pass
the tests because there was nothing in them."  The Plaintiff
alleges to have "learned about the fake samples" submitted by the
Air Monitoring Defendants while at EMSL by "personally coming
across the[m] . . . and discussing [them] with EMSL's employees
who have personal knowledge about the fake samples."  As a
supervisor, Plaintiff "had access to EMSL's air sample analysis
records showing that countless air samples provided by [the Air
Monitoring Defendants] were fake."

The Defendants have moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (i) the
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the FCA's public disclosure
provision and (ii) the Plaintiff has failed to plead his claims
with particularity.  EMSL seeks dismissal on the additional basis
that it was not properly served.  Warren & Panzer and ATC also
seek attorneys' fees.

Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York agreed as to each asserted basis for
dismissal.  Accordingly, the action is dismissed in its entirety.
The motions for attorneys' fees are denied.

The case is PING CHEN, on behalf of the United States of America,
the State of New York, and the City of New York, Plaintiff-
Relator, v. EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 10 CIV.
7504 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Abrams' opinion
and order, dated Aug. 16, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/BGDJwkfrom Leagle.com.

Ping Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Heng Wang, Esq., at Wong,
Wong & Associates, P.C., and Hardin, Kundla, McKeon, Poletto &
Polifroni, P.A.

Wong, Wong & Associates may be reached at:

         LAW OFFICES OF WONG, WONG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         150 Broadway, Suite 1588
         New York, NY 10038
         Tel: (212) 566-8080
         Fax: (212) 566-8960

Hardin Kundla may be reached at:

         HARDIN, KUNDLA, MCKEON, POLETTO & POLIFRONI, P.A.
         110 William Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Tel: (212) 571-0111
         Fax: (212) 571-1117

EMSL Analytical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Proskauer Rose
LLP located at:

         PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
         Eleven Times Square
         (Eighth Avenue & 41st Street)
         New York, NY 10036-8299
         Tel: 212.969.3000
         Fax: 212.969.2900

The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Barnett Einhorn, Esq. -- keinhorn@genovaburns.com -- and Rajiv
Dilip Parikh, Esq. -- rparikh@genovaburns.com -- at Genova Burns
Giantomasi & Webster.

Taylor Environmental Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald
Eric Steinvurzel, Esq. -- RSteinvurzel@steinlawonline.com -- at
Steinvurzel Law Group P.C.

J.C. Broderick & Associates Inc., Defendant, represented by Marc
Alan Pergament, Esq., at Weinberg, Kaley, Gross & Pergament, LLP.

Hillman Environmental Co., Inc., and Hillman Environmental Group,
L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Michael B. Titowsky, Esq., at
Morris, Duffy, Alonso & Faley, LLP.

Airtek Environmental Corp., Defendant, represented by John
Balestriere, Esq. -- john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com --
and Jillian Lee McNeil, Esq. --
jillian.mcneil@balestrierefariello.com -- at Ballestriere Fariello
P.L.L.C.

Liro Engineers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dianna L. Daghir
McCarthy, Esq. -- McCarthy.D@wssllp.com -- at Winget, Spadafora &
Schwartzberg, LLP.

McCabe Environmental Services, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
William F. Costello, Esq., Curan, Ahlers, Fiden & Norris L.L.P.,
located at:

         CURAN & AHLERS LLP
         14 Mamaroneck Ave.
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Tel: 914-428-3313
         Fax: 914-949-5800
         Email: info@curanahlers.com

ATC Associates, Inc., and Warren & Panzer, Engineers, P.C.,
Defendants, represented by Daniel Hamilton Crow, Esq. --
dcrow@osbornlaw.com -- at John E. Osborn P.C..

JLC Environmental Consultants, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Arturo Martin Boutin, Esq. -- ABoutin@damato-lynch.com -- Joseph
S. Kavesh, Esq. -- JKavesh@damato-lynch.com -- and Robert D. Lang,
Esq. -- RDLang@damato-lynch.com -- at D'Amato & Lynch.

Ambient Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eugene T. Boule,
Esq. -- eugene.boule@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Allowed to Arbitrate Reinsurance Disputes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire Insurance
Company have filed a petition pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California appoint an umpire in an arbitration
proceedings.  Respondent Clearwater Insurance Company has filed a
cross-petition, to which the Petitioners have replied.

The case arises out of a dispute over Clearwater's adherence to
its obligation to reimburse the Petitioners for their losses
arising out of asbestos litigation.  That litigation, in which
Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation sought insurance coverage
from the Petitioners for thousands of asbestos bodily injury
claims, concluded with a settlement in 2006, whereby the
Petitioners agreed to cover some part of Kaiser's claims.

Petitioners made payments to Kaiser consistent with the settlement
agreement and in turn, billed Clearwater for its share of those
payments pursuant to the three reinsurance contracts.  After
paying some of these bills, Clearwater ceased paying.  Thereafter,
on November 5, 2012, the Petitioners made a demand for arbitration
under the reinsurance contracts.

In an order dated Aug. 19, 2013, District Judge Susan Illston
granted in part and denied in part the petition and denied the
cross-petition.  According to Judge Illston, in the instant case,
compliance with the parties' chosen mechanism for appointing an
umpire is not impossible.  Instead, it is already underway in the
single arbitration demanded.  While Clearwater disputes the scope
of the Petitioners' initial demand, this is not a case where
Clearwater has completely frustrated the Petitioners' efforts,
Judge Illston pointed out.  Rather, Clearwater has participated in
the contractual appointment process.  Much of the delay has been
to resolve the legal issues Clearwater has raised in its refusals
to proceed.  Because the Court now effectively resolves those
issues, by confirming that they must be resolved by the
arbitration panel, there should be no need for further delay.

Judge Illston directed the parties to arbitrate as agreed.  Once
selected, the single arbitration panel can resolve the issues of
whether the Petitioners' demand for arbitration was an improper
consolidation, which of the three "honorable engagement"
provisions should govern, and any other similar issues the parties
raise.

The case is GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY and NEW HAMPSHIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY,
Respondent, NO. C 13-2924 SI (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Illston's Decision is available at http://is.gd/jUnlOWfrom
Leagle.com.

Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire Insurance
Company, Petitioners, represented by Robert Brooks Martin, III,
Esq. -- rbmartin@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP.

Clearwater Insurance Company, Respondent, represented by Mark
Plevin, Esq. -- mplevin@crowell.com -- at Crowell Moring LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Inmates' Tort Claim Act Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois issued two separate orders dated
Aug. 13, 2013, dismissing two inmates' actions for deprivations of
constitutional rights.  Judge G. Patrick Murphy from the same
court also issued an order dated Aug. 13, 2013, dismissing an
inmate's action for deprivation of constitutional rights.  The
three actions allege that the inmates, while incarcerated at the
Vienna Correctional Center, is being exposed to asbestos-covered
pipes and mold.

Vienna Correctional Center is the only named defendant in the
three actions.  The Vienna Correctional Center, which is a
division of the Illinois Department of Corrections, is not a
"person" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act, and is not
subject to a Section 1983 suit.  Therefore, Defendant Vienna
Correctional Center must be dismissed from the actions, with
prejudice.

The cases are:

   * BYRON McSHAN, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
     Defendant, NO. M12702, CASE NO. 13-CV-00792-MJR (S.D. Ill.).
     A full-text copy of Judge Reagan's Decision is available at
     http://is.gd/So74qufrom Leagle.com.

   * MICHAEL L. MADDALINO, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
     CENTER, Defendant, NO. S11219, CASE NO. 13-CV-00698-MJR (S.D.
     Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Reagan's Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/e9BLzrfrom Leagle.com.

   * GEORGE BAGGETT, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
     Defendant, NO. R44072, CASE NO. 13-CV-00690-GPM (S.D. Ill.).
     A full-text copy of Judge Murphy's Decision is available at
     http://is.gd/MCuETDfrom 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  * * *