/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111014.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, October 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 204


AEROPOSTALE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
APPLE INC: Faces More Suits Over Price Fixing Claims
B.O.B. TRAILERS: Recalls 438,700 B.O.B.(R) Jogging Strollers
HILCO RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Over Three Class Action Cases
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Action in New York

L&L ENERGY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MARSHALL GROUP: Recalls 39,000 Bottles of PatioGlo Bio-Fuel Gel
NATIONAL UNION: Milberg Files Class Action in California
NIDEC MOTOR: Recalls 2,000 Pool Pump Motors Due to Shock Hazard
PARTNER COMMS: Faces Suit Over Cellular Handset Services

PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Accused of Making Usurious Loans in Illinois
SHELL OIL: May Face Class Action for Violating FACTA
SOLUTIA: Anniston Councilman Seeks Class Action Over Pollutants
WOODLAND CREEK: Fails to Pay Security Deposit Interest, Suit Says

* Parliamentary Report Recommends Easier Class Actions
* Telecommunication Operators in Indonesia May Face Class Action
* U.S. Supreme Court Set to Hear Strip Search Class Action

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 21 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Aug. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Natick Realty Owner Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Bender School Abatement Begins Oct. 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Professional Training Cited for DOH Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Halts Work on Lyneham Construction Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hayes, Schuessler Cases Filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trago Mills to Pay GBP200T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Declines to Hear Appeal in CSX Fraud Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Overturns $516,094 Award in Moeller Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Developer Pleads Guilty to Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honey Creek Sentenced for Clean Air Act Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Fallon Local Admits to Clean Air Act Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to OK Board Ruling in Kritenbrink Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. District Court Issues Ruling in Fillers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Rome Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs CBC Corp.'s Motion in Vedros Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Reverses Ruling in Continental Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Todd Shipyard's Bid to Dismiss Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Bozeman Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Ruling in General Refractories

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Decision in Cat Iron Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Bondex, SPHC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex, SPHC Appeal in Insurance Action Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bromley Contractor Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Ishman Ballard Site to Cost $7,875

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Judge Dismissed From $322MM Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrow Landlord Fined GBP7T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Cleared From Seoul Baseball Stadium Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Tradesmen to Get Free Awareness Training
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rickmansworth Woman's Death Linked to Asbestos


AEROPOSTALE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud,
disclosed that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Aeropostale, Inc. between February 3, 2011, and August 3, 2011,

The complaint charges that Aeropostale and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the
following adverse facts: (i) that Aeropostale was experiencing
declining demand for its women's fashion division, which makes up
70% of the Company's sales; (ii) that Aeropostale was enduring
pressure on its profit margins as a result of increasing inventory
and higher discounts on its clothing; and (iii) that, as a result,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company.

On August 4, 2011, Aeropostale provided a business update for the
second quarter of 2011 reporting net sales of $468.2 million, a
decrease of 5% from the second quarter of 2010, and expected net
earnings to be in the range of $0.02 to $0.03 per share -- well
below the Company's guidance of $0.11 to $0.16 per share.  On this
news, Aeropostale stock fell $3.99, or 24%, to close at $12.53 per

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
December 12, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a class member that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could
affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the
defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class
action or for more information about the case, and your rights,
visit: http://www.izardnobel.com/aeropostale/or contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP, Esq.
          Toll-Free: (800)797-5499
          E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com

APPLE INC: Faces More Suits Over Price Fixing Claims
Chad Miller and Grace Hoke, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hachette Book Group, Inc., Harper
Collins Publishers, Inc., Macmillan Publishers, Inc., Penguin
Group (USA) Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc., and Apple, Inc., Case
No. 3:11-cv-05019 (N.D. Calif., October 11, 2011) accuses the
Publisher Defendants of restraining trade by coordinating their
pricing to directly set retail prices of eBooks higher than had
existed in the previously competitive market.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Publisher Defendants' unlawful
combination and pricing agreement would not have succeeded without
the active participation of Apple, which facilitated the changing
of the eBook pricing model.  The Plaintiffs bring claims under
federal and state antitrust laws to enjoin the Defendants' alleged
illegal conduct and to obtain damages.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Minnesota.  Both have purchased
eBooks by Publisher Defendants and were subjected to the new
agency pricing.

Apple is a California corporation and is a leading manufacturer of
mobile devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital
media.  Hachette Book is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and its
imprints include Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing.
HarperCollins is a leading U.S. trade publisher and its imprints
include Ecco, Harper, Harper Perennial and William Morrow.
Macmillan is a group of leading publishing companies and its U.S.
publishers include Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company,
Picador, and St. Martin's Press.  Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S.
affiliate of Penguin Group, one of the largest English-language
trade book publishers in the world.  Penguin's imprints include
Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and Penguin Books.  Simon &
Schuster is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and is part of CBS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
          Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
          2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
          San Ramon, CA 94583
          Telephone: (925) 543-2555
          Facsimile: (925) 369-0344
          E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: 612-338-4605
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Sund, Esq.
          Jackson D. Bigham, Esq.
          5125 County Road 101, Suite 202
          Minnetonka, MN 55345
          Telephone: (952) 975-0050
          E-mail: bsund@morrisonfenske.com

               - and -

          Christian M. Sande, Esq.
          2116 Second Avenue South, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55404-2606
          Telephone: (612) 387-1430
          E-mail: christian@christiansande.com

B.O.B. TRAILERS: Recalls 438,700 B.O.B.(R) Jogging Strollers
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with B.O.B. Trailers Inc., of Boise, Idaho, announced
a voluntary recall of about 411,700 B.O.B.(R) single and double
strollers in the United States of America and 27,000 in Canada.
About 357,000 units were recalled in February 2011 due to
strangulation hazard posed by canopy drawstring.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The stroller canopy's embroidered logo's backing patch can detach,
posing a choking hazard to babies and young children.

The firm has received six reports of children mouthing the
detached patch.  Gagging and choking were reported in two
incidents.  The backing was removed from the children's mouth
without injury.  In each of the reported incidents, the children
were seated in an infant car seat attached to the stroller.

This recall involves all B.O.B. strollers manufactured between
November 1998 and November 2010.  Strollers manufactured after
October 2006 have a white label affixed to the back of the
stroller's leg with the manufacturing date.  Strollers with no
manufacturing date listed were produced prior to October 2006 and
are included in this recall.  The strollers were sold in single
seat and double-seat models.  The BOB(R), Ironman(R) or Stroller
Strides(R) brand name is embroidered on the canopy of the
strollers.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold at REI, Babies R' Us and other children's product and
sporting goods stores nationwide and Amazon.com between November
1998 and October 2011 for between $280 and $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers
until they remove the embroidery backing patch from the interior
of the canopy's logo.  Consumers should contact B.O.B. Trailers
for instructions on removing the backing.  For additional
information, contact B.O.B. Trailers toll-free at (855) 242-2245
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bobnotices.com/

HILCO RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Over Three Class Action Cases
General Casualty Company of Wisconsin v. Hilco Receivables, LLC,
Michael Cox, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Wayne A. Bradshaw, on his behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Mike Medina and Raymond Medina,
Case No. 2011-CH-35194 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 11,
2011) is brought by General Casualty to ask the Court to issue a
judgment declaring that certain policies of insurance it issued do
not require it to defend or indemnify Hilco Receivables in
connection with certain underlying lawsuits:

   (a) Michael Cox, individually and on behalf of all other
       persons similarly situated v. Hilco Receivables, LLC, et
       al. (N.D. Tex., No. 09-cv-00897);

   (b) Wayne A. Bradshaw, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
       others similarly situated v. Hilco Receivables, LLC
       (Frederick Co., Maryland, No. 10-C-09-003612 OC); and

   (c) Hilco Receivables, LLC v. Mike Medina, et al. (Bexar Co.,
       Texas, No. 357128).

The Plaintiff alleges that Hilco is not listed as a named insured
under certain insurance policies and, therefore, General Casualty
has no coverage obligations to Hilco with respect to the
Underlying Lawsuits.  General Casualty adds, among other things,
that the plaintiffs in the Underlying Lawsuits do not allege
"bodily injury," and hence,  General Casualty owes no coverage to
Hilco with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits because they fail to
allege any "bodily injury" attributable to Hilco.

General Casualty is a Wisconsin corporation and is qualified to do
business in Illinois.

Hilco is an Illinois limited liability company.  Mr. Cox is a
resident of Texas, Mr. Bradshaw is a resident of Maryland, and the
Medinas are residents of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Stephenson, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Butovich, Esq.
          303 W. Madison, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 781-6670
                     (312) 781-6573
          Facsimile: (312) 781-6630
          E-mail: stephenson@litchfieldcavo.com

JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
Zamansky & Associates LLC and Sianni & Straite LLP disclosed that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on October 11, 2011, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by investor Marco Peters individually and on behalf of all other
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired JinkoSolar New York
Stock Exchange-traded American Depositary Shares, CUSIP 47759T100,
between May 13, 2010 and September 21, 2011.  The Class Action
Complaint alleges that JinkoSolar and certain of its officers
and/or directors have violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and includes a claim for equitable
assessment of attorneys' fees.  The Complaint also asserts Section
11 and 12(a)(2) claims against lead underwriter Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC and other investment banks that underwrote
JinkoSolar's May 13, 2010 IPO.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint filed in this action, styled
Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al. (SDNY) can be
viewed on the firms' Web sites at http://www.zamansky.comor

JinkoSolar is one of the world's largest manufacturers of
photovoltaic ("PV") products, including crystalline ingots,
wafers, cells and mono- and multi-crystalline PV panels.  Based in
the People's Republic of China, JinkoSolar launched an IPO in the
United States on May 13, 2010 issuing 5,835,000 ADSs to trade on
the New York Stock Exchange, representing 23,340,000 ordinary
shares.  In the IPO Prospectus, Registration Statement, and
subsequent SEC filings, JinkoSolar assured investors that it was
in full compliance will all PRC environmental regulations.

Last month, after a massive die-off of fish in a river adjacent to
JinkoSolar's primary manufacturing facility in Haining, hundreds
of local residents protested and eventually ransacked the
facility.  A total of 31 people were detained by police, and the
facility was shut for several weeks.  Jinko has since admitted
that it was responsible for the environmental contamination and
agreed to take remedial action.  JinkoSolar admitted at a press
conference, "we cannot shirk responsibility for the legal
consequences which have come from management slips."  Following
the disclosure of the contamination, JinkoSolar's ADSs lost more
than 42% of their value in a single week, wiping out millions of
dollars of shareholder value.

Plaintiff is represented by Zamansky & Associates LLC, a New York-
based law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting securities
fraud and financial services arbitration and litigation; and
Sianni & Straite LLP, a Delaware-based litigation firm (with a
branch office in New York) whose primary mission is to protect the
rights of investors.

If you purchased JinkoSolar ADSs during the Class Period, you may,
no later than 60 days from October 11, 2011, move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class, if you so choose.
In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

Contact: Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
         Telephone: (212) 742-1414
         E-mail: jake@zamansky.com

L&L ENERGY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
Gardy & Notis, LLP reminds investors of the important October 25,
2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all purchasers of shares of common stock
of L&L Energy, Inc. during a class period of August 13, 2009, to
August 2, 2011.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf all individual
and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of L&L Energy common stock during the class period.  The
complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
against L&L Energy and certain of its officers and directors for
issuing materially false and misleading information about the
Company's internal controls and true business and financial
condition.  On July 29, 2011, L&L Energy amended its fiscal year
2010 10-K to disclose further internal control deficiencies within
the Company.  On August 2, 2011, analyst firm Glaucus Research
issued a report showing that L&L Energy's 2009 financial
statements filed with Chinese authorities showed much worse
financial metrics than L&L Energy had represented in filings with
the SEC.  The report also raised a number of red flags, including
that certain operating subsidiaries were not in the name of the
Company.  The Complaint further alleges that when this adverse
information entered the market, the price of L&L Energy common
stock fell thereby damaging investors.

If you purchased shares of L&L Energy common stock between
August 13, 2009, and August 2, 2011, you may, no later than
October 25, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff for the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  You must meet certain legal requirements to serve as
a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of
the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact:

          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377 or 212-905-0509
          E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com

MARSHALL GROUP: Recalls 39,000 Bottles of PatioGlo Bio-Fuel Gel
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Marshall Group, of Elkhart, Indiana, announced a voluntary recall
of about 39,000 bottles of Marshall Gardens PatioGlo Bio-Fuel Gel.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly to the consumer and
expel onto people and objects nearby when it is poured into a
firepot that is still burning.  This hazard can occur if the
consumer does not see the flame or is not aware that the firepot
is still ignited.  Gel fuel that expels and ignites can pose fire
and burn risks to consumers that can be fatal.

The Marshall Group has received four reports of incidents,
resulting in three injuries with burns requiring hospitalization.

This recall involves pourable gel fuels packaged in 32 oz. clear
plastic bottles and sold with or without citronella.  The label on
the container says "PatioGlo bio-fuel gel" or "Citronella
PatioGlo."  The fuel is poured into a metal cup in the center of
ceramic firepots or other decorative lighting devices and ignited.
The following products are included in this recall:

      Size      Model Number                SKU
      ----      ------------           ------------
      32 oz.    PG-32                  845095015023
      32 oz.    PGC-32 (Citronella)    845095015030

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at gift shops, home and garden stores, and online
stores nationwide from November 2010 until August 2011 for between
$7.99 and $11.99.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel in
firepots and return all bottles to the company for a full refund.
For additional information, contact the Marshall Group at
recall@marshallgroupcorp.com or toll-free at 855-270-8482 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or
visit the company's Web site at http://marshallgroupcorp.com/

NATIONAL UNION: Milberg Files Class Action in California
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
designated beneficiaries of occupational accident insurance
underwritten by National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh PA
purchased from NUFI's authorized agent, Associated Underwriters,
Inc., or AUI's related entity, United Truckers Association, before
April 1, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that NUFI, through the brokers, sold
occupational accident insurance to truckers that failed to specify
the terms of the insurance policies.  Truckers filled out one page
application forms for insurance that asked questions regarding the
insured and listed only a total amount of coverage sought by the
insured.  The brokers then sent the insured a one page certificate
of insurance that did not clearly indicate the terms of coverage,
including purported sub-limits on the policies.  Truckers then
paid premiums for the insurance policies, believing they were
insured to the full amount shown on the application.

The lawsuit further alleges that if a beneficiary sought to
collect on the policy, NUFI claimed that various sub-limits --
which had not been previously disclosed in a clear manner to the
insured -- applied, and limited its payment accordingly.  At least
one court has already ruled "certificates of membership insurance"
identical to the ones at issue in this case are unclear regarding
the terms of coverage NUFI claims apply.  The complaint has been
filed as a class action and can be obtained from the Court.

If you are insured under or a beneficiary of a NUFI policy
purchased prior to April 1, 2008, you can contact us for
additional information.  You do not need to contact any lawyer to
participate as an absent class member in a class action.  However,
no class has yet been certified, and there can be no guarantee
that a class will be certified, or who the members of any such
class will be if one is certified.

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com-- has represented investors
and consumers for over four decades and serves as lead counsel in
courts throughout the United States.  If you wish to discuss this
matter with us, please contact the following attorneys:

          Jeff Westerman, Esq.
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Milberg LLP
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: contactus@milberg.com

NIDEC MOTOR: Recalls 2,000 Pool Pump Motors Due to Shock Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nidec Motor Corporation, of St. Louis, Missouri, and Emerson Motor
Company, a division of Emerson Electric Co., of St. Louis,
Missouri, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 units of
Ecotech EZ(R) Variable Speed pool pump motor.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The pump cover is not properly grounded posing an electrical shock

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled motors are variable speed swimming pool pump motors
with a 6.5 inch diameter steel frame painted black with a square
or C-flange mounting.  The rating plate is on the side of the pump
and "EMERSON. CAT.NO.EVSS3" and "MODEL M63PWBLE-121.H.P. 3.0,
S.F.1.15" is printed on the plate.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at pool
motor distributors, pool dealers and pump manufacturers nationwide
from September 2010 through August 2011 for about $1,000.

Customers should stop using the recalled pool pumps immediately
and call Nidec Motor Corporation to arrange a free repair.  For
additional information, contact Nidec Motor Corporation toll-free
at (866) 278-6920 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at

PARTNER COMMS: Faces Suit Over Cellular Handset Services
Partner Communications Company Ltd. disclosed that it was served
with a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as
a class action, filed against Partner on October 5, 2011 in the
Central District Court.

The claim alleges that Partner enables its customers to subscribe
to a content back up service for cellular handsets without
informing them in cases in which the handset does not support the
Service or only partially supports such Service.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS117 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.

                  About Partner Communications

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is an Israeli provider of
telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony and
internet services) under the orange(TM) brand.  The Company
provides mobile communications services to over 3 million
subscribers in Israel.  Partner's ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange (nasdaq and tase:PTNR).

Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex
Corporation Ltd.  Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink
Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK.  Scailex currently operates in
two major domains of activity in addition to its holding in
Partner: (1) the sole import, distribution and maintenance of
Samsung mobile handset and accessories products primarily to the
major cellular operators in Israel (2) management of its financial

PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Accused of Making Usurious Loans in Illinois
Deborah Jackson and Linda Gonnella, on behalf of plaintiffs and
the class members described below v. Payday Financial, LLC, d/b/a
Lakota Cash, Big Sky Cash, and Big $ky Cash; Western Sky
Financial, LLC, d/b/a Western Sky Funding, Western Sky, and
Westernsky.com; Great Sky Finance, LLC, d/b/a Great Sky Cash,
Great $ky Cash, and Gsky; Red Stone Financial, LLC, d/b/a Red
Stone Cash; Management Systems, LLC, d/b/a Gsky; 24-7 Cash Direct,
LLC; Red River Ventures, LLC; High Country Ventures, LLC;
Financial Solutions, LLC; Martin A. ("Butch") Webb; and Does 1-5,
doing business as WS Funding LLC and under other names, Case No.
2011-CH-35207 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 11, 2011) is
brought to secure redress from alleged usurious loans made over
the Internet to Illinois residents by a number of entities owned
and controlled by Mr. Webb.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Illinois Interest Act, the
Illinois criminal usury statute and the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act.  The Plaintiffs also accuse Mr. Webb of directing the Webb
Entities to engage in illegal conduct.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois.

Payday Financial, Western Sky, Great Sky, Red Stone Management
Systems, 24-7 Cash Direct, Red River Ventures, High Country
Ventures are limited liability companies chartered under the law
of the state of South Dakota and offer loans to consumers.
Mr. Webb is a resident of South Dakota, and is the owner of
authorized manager of the Webb Entities.  The names of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

SHELL OIL: May Face Class Action for Violating FACTA
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Shell Oil
may have to face a class action lawsuit for its failure to mask
the last five digits of clients' credit card numbers on printed
receipts, a federal judge ruled.

To protect customers from identity theft based on stolen credit
card information, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) prohibits merchants from printing the card's expiration
date or any more than the last five digits of its number on a

Shell's credit card layout differs from that of other cards such
as Visa or Mastercard, which have a single series of numbers
embossed on the front.  Shell cards have two different numbers
embossed on the card, the first of which is the nine-digit so-
called "account number," followed by the six-digit "card number."

Shell masks a series of numbers in the middle of the embossed
digits, leaving out the last five digits of the "account number."
Visa and other cards, however, on the other hand mask those last
five digits.

Natalie Van Straaten seeks to represent a class of consumers who
used Shell's credit and debit cards at Shell gas stations.  Her
complaint alleged that Shell Oil Products, Equilon and Shell Oil
masked the wrong digits on receipts printed after using their
cards, in violation of FACTA.  Shell responded with a motion for
summary judgment.

Shell contended that its "account number" is the same as FACTA's
"card number," but the court was unconvinced.

"A consumer purchasing a product on-line, when asked to input her
card number, types in all of the numbers on the front of the
card," U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning wrote.  "If she only
typed in a portion of the number, such as the digits corresponding
to Shell's so-called 'account number', the transaction would be

"Because FACTA only applies to electronically printed receipts,
the phrase 'the last 5 digits of the card number' necessarily must
refer to the last five digits that can be read electronically,"
the 20-page decision states.

"To hold otherwise would require the court to ignore Congress'
expressed intent to regulate receipts produced electronically
since swiped payment cards read the magnetic stripe, not the
numbers on the face of a card," Judge Manning added.

Although Shell noted that the terms "account number" and "card
number" are used interchangeably in the payment-card industry, the
court found this argument inapplicable in this case, where the two
do not refer to the same series of numbers.

"Since Shell chose not to follow the otherwise uniform industry
standard when designing its payment cards and masking protocol,
its current predicament is of its own making," Judge Manning

Although Shell's masking protocol has not caused Ms. Van Straaten
any harm, and she continues to use her Shell payment card, she
seeks the statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per occurrence.

The judgment noted that given the large number of Shell payment
cards issued, Shell could face a very large damages claim if the
class is certified.

It remains for a jury to determine if Shell's conduct was willful
and reckless.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Van Straaten v.
Shell Oil Products Company LLC, et al., Case No. 09-cv-01188 (N.D.
Ill.), is available at:


SOLUTIA: Anniston Councilman Seeks Class Action Over Pollutants
Laura Camper, writing for The Anniston Star, reports that Anniston
City Councilman Ben Little wants Solutia to pay up.

The company's predecessor in Anniston, Monsanto, produced
polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, in the city until 1971.  The
PCBs, now considered a pollutant and health risk, had to be
cleaned up and a landmark class action suit ensured that for
individual residents, Mr. Little said.

But the city has suffered damage, too, he said.

Mr. Little has contacted the company on several occasions and
requested city attorney Cleophus Thomas contact the company on the
city's behalf.  Now, he thinks the council should take legal
action against Solutia.

"We have to get to the table with Solutia, and not just Solutia,
but some other companies that were here," Mr. Little said.  "Then
we can move the city forward and continue clean up."

In a letter he wrote to Solutia dated May 28, 2010, Mr. Little
said, "The city therefore has a public interest in seeing that its
right-of-way are clean and that there is no continuing
contamination in the common areas to which the public has access."

But Mr. Little is also concerned about how the experience has
marked Anniston.

"The contamination's effect on the City's business recruitment
effort and general reputation is profound, negative and
continuing," his letter states.

Councilman John Spain, who has also spoken to Solutia
representatives, agreed.

Mr. Spain said that when he was thinking of moving to Anniston,
the publicity from the Monsanto suit made him think twice.

"The city certainly has been a victim for many, many years," Spain
said at the council meeting in September, when Mr. Little first
brought up the issue.

A representative from Solutia confirmed that it has spoken to some
of the council members.

"Solutia has reached out to various members of the council to
address ways we can work in conjunction with the city and other
community groups to promote Anniston," said Erin Walsh,
communications manager for Solutia.  "We know community members
all over Anniston are working for change and we hope the City
Council will choose to do the same by talking with us and other
industry about productive solutions."

Mayor Gene Robinson, while concerned about a potential lawsuit,
also questioned why Mr. Little would contact Solutia without first
coming to the council for approval.

"Who has authorized two councilmen to go and speak to Solutia
about anything?" Mayor Robinson said.  "We haven't taken a vote on

Mr. Little though said he didn't need council approval to talk to

"There's nothing wrong with talking," Mr. Little said.

The letters, he said, were just from him and he didn't infer that
they were from the entire council.  However, the letter from
attorney Thomas does say, "I am writing to you in my capacity as
Anniston, Alabama, city attorney."

Mr. Little said he was coming to the council now because he would
like to have official action from the council.

Mayor Robinson has faced the same questions from the other

Just this past July, Mayor Robinson sent a letter on letterhead
from his office to the governor stating the city knew about an ABC
store proposed for downtown.

Mr. Little said that letter was different from his letter to
Solutia, because it said the city supported the store.

"Before any official formal action can be taken we have to come to
the council," Mr. Little said.

Mayor Robinson also believed his letter was not the same kind of
circumstance as Mr. Little's contacts with Solutia.

"I did not infer that it came from the council or the city of
Anniston," Mayor Robinson said.  "I was just advocating (an) ABC
store in order to retain the revenue tax off of that."

Advocating business, Mayor Robinson said, is his responsibility as

WOODLAND CREEK: Fails to Pay Security Deposit Interest, Suit Says
John and Jessica Mueller, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Woodland Creek LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-35162
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 11, 2011) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Woodland Creek failed to pay interest on
their security deposit either by cash or credit to be applied to

The Plaintiffs leased an apartment in Wheeling, Cook County,
Illinois, from May 28, 2010, to May 31, 2011.

Woodland Creek owns the apartment complex that the Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256-2055
          E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com

* Parliamentary Report Recommends Easier Class Actions
William Mace, writing for BusinessDay.co.nz, reports that a long-
awaited parliamentary report into finance company failures has
recommended fast-tracking a bill making it easier for out-of-
pocket investors to take class actions.

The Inquiry into Finance Company Failures has taken more than two
years to come up with 13 recommendations, but its chairwoman
Labour MP Lianne Dalziel said she was confident Parliament would
make the Class Action Bill a priority after the election.

Ms. Dalziel said the inquiry had "been put on the back-burner"
while she dealt with earthquakes in her home electorate of
Christchurch East, but she said its role was as more of a "back
stop" for ongoing legislative and regulatory changes in the wake
of the finance sector collapse.

"I'm hoping that the government will pick up the report and ensure
that those elements of the report that are not picked up by
[existing draft] Securities legislation are able to be put forward
when the bill is introduced into the house," Ms. Dalziel said.

A draft Class Action Bill, which would make it easier for
investors who lost money to pool their resources for legal action,
has been in the works at the Department of Justice for more than
two years.

Since May 2006, 45 New Zealand-based finance companies --
including Bridgecorp, Nathans Finance and Five Star Finance --
have failed after either being placed into receivership or
entering into moratorium arrangements with debt holders.

The failures have "put at risk" about NZ$6 billion of investors'
deposits, much of which will not be recovered, said the report.

It estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 deposit holders have
been affected with losses to date of over NZ$3 billion.

The report also asked that the Bill set out rules for the use of
third-party funders who take on the cost of litigation in return
for a percentage of a successful claim.

"If commercial funding of litigation became more widely available
in New Zealand, it would probably be welcomed by aggrieved finance
company investors," the report said.

"We believe, however, that safeguards would be needed to govern
the operation of such third-party funders.

"We would like to see priority given to progressing this [Class
Action] legislation during the term of the next Parliament, and
believe the bill should also include guidelines for the operation
of litigation funding."

The new Financial Markets Authority has also been given some scope
for bringing class action suits against finance companies.

The inquiry's recommendations mainly reinforced the need for
legislative actions which are already underway or suggested a
general improvement in New Zealanders' financial literacy.

Ms. Dalziel said Labour and Green Party members of the committee
pushed for a prohibition of celebrity endorsements on financial
products, while the current government had only planned to
increase penalties for celebrities who are judged to have made
misleading statements.

The report also recommended pushing through planned legislation
giving creditors the means to seek financial redress using assets
held in trusts, banning commission payments for financial advisers
and extending whistle-blower rights for employees who witness

Other recommendations included renaming moratoria as "creditor
compromise situations" to signal the unlikelihood of a
satisfactory outcome for investors, and that trustees who
supervise investment companies be termed "supervisers".

It said the government should give priority to improving New
Zealanders' understanding of financial matters "focused
particularly on those at or nearing retirement age, on young
people to build financial capability, and on those most at risk
from scams and irresponsible lending practices".

* Telecommunication Operators in Indonesia May Face Class Action
Hans David Tampubolon, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that
representatives of telecommunications consumers say that a class
action against telecommunication operators and content providers
could be launched after a meeting to seek a solution to
unauthorized transactions ended with nothing concrete.

David Tobing, a lawyer representing consumers, said he was unhappy
with the results of the meeting that was facilitated by the
Communication and Informations Ministry.  "The operators responded
only with promises that they would tighten their monitoring of
their content provider partners.

They did not give us concrete solutions, such as exact measures to
compensate our losses," Mr. Tobing told The Jakarta Post.

"The operators and providers should have calculated the average
losses suffered by each consumer and made a firm commitment to
compensate them," he added.

Mr. Tobing deemed the meeting useless and that it contributed
nothing at all to consumers who had been fighting for their rights
against the telecommunication companies and content providers.

"The ministry, as a regulator, should also have produced a solid
plan on how to monitor providers and operators so that they can no
longer exploit consumers," he added.

"Instead, the ministry only established a coordination team,
consisting of their own representatives, the operators and the
providers, with no representation at all coming from the consumers
or the police."

Hundreds of telecommunications consumers have filed complaints at
various police command posts, organized by the Jakarta Student
Circle that has been specially established to compile cellular
phone customers' complaints against providers and operators.

"In my opinion, the ministry must be willing to enforce a
moratorium on premium programs in the telecommunications industry.
What has happened so far shows that the state has failed to
monitor business conduct within the industry," Mr. Tobing said.

He said that due to the disappointment over the results of the
meeting, consumers planned to launch a class action.

According to the ministry's official release, the meeting mandated
the Indonesian Telecommunications Regulatory Body (BRTI) to
compile all the data related to consumers' potential losses due to
unauthorized third party programs and to submit them to the
National Police and the Jakarta Police for investigation.

The BRTI would also be responsible for closely monitoring the
business relationships between content providers and
telecommunications operators and, while doing this, the regulatory
body would also design an application system that would enable
consumers to block premium content should they wish to do so.

* U.S. Supreme Court Set to Hear Strip Search Class Action
All Headline News reports that the U.S. Supreme Court was set to
hear on Oct. 12 a class action suit on strip searches filed by a
36-year old finance director of a car dealership detained for
minor offenses.

The strip search of Albert Florence happened in 2005 after he was
picked up by police for an outstanding fine while his pregnant
wife was driving their BMW along a New Jersey road.  The couple
and their young son were on their way to Mr. Florence's mother-in-
law's house to celebrate their acquisition of a new house.

Mr. Florence, who was required to take off his clothes as part of
a routine processing, was erroneously arrested and jailed for
seven days.  He had paid the fine years earlier.

The naked Mr. Florence was made to open his mouth, lift his
tongue, stretch out his arms, turn around and lift his genitals.
He was made to go through the same ordeal in another county jail.

Mr. Florence recalled crying from being scared and humiliated by
what he underwent.

Lawyers for Mr. Florence said he filed the lawsuit on behalf of
other people who also went through the same humiliation, such as
people arrested for driving a car with a noisy muffler, not using
a turn signal and riding a bike without an audible bell.

Psychiatrists and groups that support victims of domestic violence
support Mr. Florence's lawsuit due to the traumatic effect a strip
search has on a person, especially women.

The court case will tackle the constitutionality of strip
searches, which involve conflicting issues concerning individual
privacy rights against jailers' interest in maintaining safety and

For almost 30 years, federal courts based their decisions on
similar cases on a Supreme Court ruling that jailers must have
reasonable suspicion before they could conduct a strip search on
people arrested on minor charges.

However, appeals courts in Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia
said the Fourth Amendment does not forbid the blanket policy of
strip searches on general prison population, whatever the charge.
Among the reasons behind such reasoning is that prisons are full
of danger because of the volume of illegal items smuggled, which a
strip search could deter.

Law enforcement officials, lawyers, civil libertarians and
politicians are also divided on the issue.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 21 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Aug. 28
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 21 asbestos-
related cases as of Aug. 28, 2011, compared to 20 cases as of
May 29, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Oct. 4, 2011 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits.  These cases generally seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to
products previously manufactured by the Company and others.

During the quarter ended Aug. 28, 2011, there were six new
asbestos-related cases, five dismissed cases, no settled cases and
no judgments; expenses totaled US$25,000, and there were no
recoveries.  The Company incurred expenses from asbestos-related
lawsuits of US$13,000 during the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2010, and
there were no recoveries.

During the nine months ended Aug. 28, 2011, the Company incurred
expenses of US$540,000; and there were no recoveries.  The Company
incurred expenses of US$77,000 and recovered US$28,000 in the nine
months ended Aug. 29, 2010.

Pasadena, Calif.-based Ameron International Corporation is a
multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered products and
materials for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and
infrastructure markets.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Natick Realty Owner Fined for Safety Violations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
assessed a US$41,235 penalty to David J. Oliveri and Prudential
Lenmar Realty of Natick for violations of MassDEP's asbestos
regulations that occurred at a Worcester residence and an Upton
storage unit in February 2009, according to a MassDEP press
release dated Oct. 5, 2011.

MassDEP inspectors originally determined that Mr. Oliveri
knowingly arranged for asbestos insulation on the home's heating
system to be removed by a general contractor who lacked any
asbestos license, training or certifications.  The asbestos waste
was subsequently moved by the general contractor to a rented
storage unit in Upton.

MassDEP personnel inspected both the basement of the residence and
the storage unit, and observed that the asbestos-containing waste
materials had not been properly removed, handled, packaged or
labeled as required by the regulations.  Mr. Oliveri was required
to retain the services of a Massachusetts Division of Occupational
Safety-licensed asbestos contractor to properly handle, package
and dispose of all the asbestos waste, and to decontaminate the
basement and the storage unit.

MassDEP penalized Mr. Oliveri for violating the regulations by
failing to provide MassDEP with advance notification of a
demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing
materials; and for the improper removal, handling, packaging and
labeling of asbestos-containing waste materials.

Under a consent order with MassDEP, Mr. Oliveri was required to
pay US$35,100 of the assessed penalty.  The remaining US$6,135 was
suspended provided that he does not violate the asbestos
regulations for the next two years.

Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, said, "Contractors and operators involved with building
renovation work must be fully aware of their responsibilities
under the regulations to provide advance notification to MassDEP
of activities involving asbestos-contaminated materials, and to
follow prescribed work practices to prevent potential exposures
workers, tenants and the general public to a known carcinogen.

"As this case illustrates, noncompliance with the asbestos
regulations will result in significant penalty exposure, as well
as escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal and monitoring

Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials, proper removal, handling, packaging, storage
and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are
encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe
management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills, and the preservation
of wetlands and coastal resources.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Bender School Abatement Begins Oct. 11
Charles Bender High School, which is located in 611 Higgins St.,
Humble, Tex., is to undergo asbestos abatement beginning Oct. 11,
2011, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Assistant City Manager Mark Martin said the project consists of
removing asbestos from the complex, which includes the gymnasium,
the two-story high school and the one-story annex.  Upon the
completion of abatement, the gym will be demolished because of its
rundown condition.

The project should take 74 days, which includes the abatement and
demolition.  Mr. Martin said the contractor will decide when to
tear down the gym.  The project will cost US$237,000.

There are no plans yet for what Humble will do with the high
school.  The current objective is to get the buildings clean and
free of asbestos, Mr. Martin said.

The city purchased the school so the school district would no
longer be burdened with the costs.  This was also due to the fact
that costs to tear down the high school would cost more than the

Bender, which was last used in 2004 as an administrative building,
is named after Charles Bender Sr., one the city's historical

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Professional Training Cited for DOH Violations
The Hawaii State Department of Health has issued a Notice of
Violation and Order against Professional Training Hawai'i, LLC for
multiple violations of the state's asbestos training and
certification regulations, according to a Hawaii DOH press release
dated Oct. 4, 2011.

Professional Training Hawai'i was cited for three counts of
issuing course completion certificates to students who failed the
certification examination, and failing to properly ensure and
document that each person receiving a course completion
certificate has achieved a passing score on the examination.

Other violations include failure to provide the DOH notices of
training, as well as prior notification for their new training
site.  The violations were discovered during an audit and
inspection of records on April 29 and May 12, 2011.  The DOH has
imposed a penalty of US$21,000.  Professional Training Hawai'i may
request a hearing to contest the allegations or order.

DOH has collected the affected training certificates and the
individuals will need to retake the course from an accredited
training provider and pass the exam prior to conducting regulated
asbestos activities.  Professional Training Hawai'i is currently
not operating as an asbestos training provider.

To perform tasks related to asbestos, all individuals must be
certified each year in their particular areas.  Asbestos
professionals are required to attend annual training classes to
keep up to date with the knowledge they need to keep themselves,
others and the environment safe from exposure.

State regulations govern the certification and training of
asbestos professionals and any asbestos-related activity (such as
demolition, renovation or repair) for commercial, public,
institutional, schools, most multi-family housing, and industrial
buildings in Hawai'i.

However, even private single-family homeowners are recommended to
hire certified asbestos professionals when they suspect asbestos
may create a problem.

DOH and its various divisions work to protect and improve the
health and environment for all people in Hawai'i.  The DOH Indoor
and Radiological Health Branch regulates asbestos abatement
activities including the accreditation of asbestos training
providers, which ensures properly trained and qualified asbestos
abatement workers, supervisors, inspectors, project designers,
project monitors and management planners.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Halts Work on Lyneham Construction Site
Work has stopped on the redevelopment of the Lyneham Sports
Precinct in Lyneham, Canberra, Australia, after a recent find of a
massive cache of illegally dumped asbestos on the site, The
Canberra Times reports.

The project has been halted after an area the size of a cricket
oval was found to be covered with builders' waste containing the

All workers on the Southwell Park site, where work has been in
progress since May 2011, have been advised to seek medical
attention as a multi-agency government taskforce launched several
separate inquiries and Work Safe ACT took control of the site.

Environment Minister Simon Corbell held a press conference on
Oct. 5, 2011, where Chief Health Officer Dr. Paul Kelly said the
risks to the general public in the area were "minimal."

Big building projects around Canberra have been plagued by huge
finds of soil contaminated by asbestos in recent years.  The cost
of the stormwater project for the new Molonglo suburbs blew out by
more than AU$20 million when 90,000 tons of asbestos-tainted soil
was found at the site in 2010 and the full extent of the
contamination turned out to be 160,000 tons.

Then in April 2011, the discovery of at least 600,000 cubic meters
of contaminated soil at Eastlake, with a potential clean-up bill
of AU$100 million, threw the massive redevelopment of the area
into turmoil.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hayes, Schuessler Cases Filed in St. Clair Co.
The asbestos cases of Edward and Iva Hayes (filed on Sept. 28,
2011) and Delvin and Rosalie Schuessler (filed on Sept. 23, 2011)
are pending in St. Clair County Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair
Record reports.

The Hayes case was filed against 53 defendant corporations and the
Schuessler case was filed against 45 defendant corporations.

The Hayes and the Schuesslers are represented by Randy L. Gori,
Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill., in St. Clair County Circuit Court Case Nos.
11-L-546 and 11-L-538.

In their complaint, the Hayes couple alleges the defendant
companies caused Mr. Hayes to develop lung cancer after his
exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

Mr. Hayes worked as a fireman from 1945 until 1947, as a mechanic
at Clyde Jones Auto from 1948 until 1954, as a plumber and
pipefitter at various private businesses from 1954 until 1956, as
a plumber and pipefitter at Warren Green Plumbing from 1956 until
the 1960s and as a maintenance worker and plumber at Appalachian
State University from the 1960s until the 1990s, according to the

In their complaint, the Schuesslers allege Mr. Schuessler
developed lung cancer after his work as a maintenance worker and
mechanic at McDonnell Douglas/Boeing from 1955 until 1977.

In their six-count complaint, the Hayes couple seeks a judgment of
more than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than
US$100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the
defendant for their misconduct and punitive and exemplary damages
of more than US$100,000, plus costs and other relief the court
deems just.

In their 10-count complaint, the Schuesslers seek judgment of more
than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants
for their misconduct, punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$100,000 and economic damages of more than US$150,000.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trago Mills to Pay GBP200T for Disposal Breach
After being prosecuted by the U.K. Environment Agency, Trago Mills
has been ordered to pay nearly GBP200,000 in fines and costs for
illegally dumping and burning waste, the Cornish Guardian reports.

Magistrates in Torquay, England, were told that several thousand
tons of mixed waste, including asbestos, was illegally tipped and
disposed of at Trago Mills stores and leisure parks near Liskeard
and Newton Abbot.

On Sept. 14, 2009, agency officers visited the Newton Abbot store
and found waste had been illegally landfilled, including soil,
stone, plastic, electrical goods, plumbing pipes, broken paving,
tiles, concrete, wood, packaging, pots of paints and chemicals and
broken dustbins.

The court heard that in June 2009, video footage taken from a
helicopter showed a huge and previously unknown stockpile of waste
in a wooded valley near the River Fowey on land belonging to Trago
Mills.  The stockpile contained substantial amounts of wood
including pallets and furniture, timber, tree cuttings, rubble and
cardboard packaging.

A court heard Trago Mills had an annual turnover of GBP85 million
in 2008 and made a pre-tax profit of GBP4 million.  The Company
has worked with the Environment Agency to remove the illegally
dumped waste.  It employed extra staff to help recover and sort
the waste and claimed the clean-up operation has cost almost

Dave Brogden, for the Environment Agency, said, "Trago Mills uses
its location in the unspoilt Devon countryside to market its out-
of-town stores and leisure parks.  You would think such a company
would do all it could to protect these locations.  Instead, it
dumped thousands of tons of waste and showed huge disregard for
the environment."

Trago Mills (South Devon) Ltd and Charles Robertson (Developments)
Ltd were fined a total of GBP185,000 after pleading guilty to a
five offences of illegally depositing and disposing of waste. They
were also ordered to pay GBP14,558 costs and GBP30 victim

The court imposed fines of GBP37,000 for each of the five
offenses, two of which related to the illegal disposal of
controlled waste in a manner likely to pollute the environment or
harm to human health.  All five offences breached Section 33 of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Declines to Hear Appeal in CSX Fraud Case
The U.S. Supreme Court, on Oct. 3, 2011, declined to hear an
appeal of the law firm of Peirce Raimond & Coulter, which is
alleged to have conspired to fabricate asbestos claims, Legal
Newsline reports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in December
2010 that CSX did not miss the statute of limitations when it
filed its lawsuit.  The Fourth Circuit decision had overturned a
West Virginia federal judge's decision.

CSX argued the statute of limitations did not begin running until
the lawsuits it used as examples were found to be meritless.

CSX's complaint said Peirce hid nine fraudulent claims among other
lawsuits filed by the law firm in West Virginia.  The complaint
noted that radiologist Ray Harron, who was found by a Texas
federal judge in 2005 to have created fraudulent silica claims,
lost his license in 2007.  Many of the Peirce firm's diagnoses
were made by Mr. Harron.

The nine lawsuits were filed and settled from 2000 to 2006.  U.S.
District Judge Frederick Stamp ruled the four-year statute began
when the Peirce firm began targeting CSX.

The Fourth Circuit also ruled Judge Stamp should have allowed CSX
to amend its complaint to include 11 other asbestos lawsuits.

Since the Fourth Circuit made its decision, the two sides have
argued over whether CSX should be allowed to contact Peirce's
former clients.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Overturns $516,094 Award in Moeller Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on Oct. 5, 2011,
overturned a Kentucky jury's US$516,094 award -- a move favoring
Garlock Sealing Technologies -- in Robert Moeller's asbestos case,
Legal Newsline reports.

Mr. Moeller worked with asbestos-containing gaskets made by
Garlock from 1962 to 1970 and died in 2008 of mesothelioma.  His
wife Olwen sued Garlock and several other companies not involved
in the appeal.

Garlock argued that Mr. Moeller's mesothelioma could have been
caused by exposure to asbestos insulation.  It presented evidence
that Mr. Moeller sustained substantial exposure to asbestos
insulation from 1962 to 1975.

Dr. Arthur Frank provided expert testimony for the plaintiffs that
any exposure, including from Garlock gaskets, would have
contributed.  Kentucky law requires a plaintiff to prove that a
defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in the harm.

Judge Ralph Guy voted with Judge Alice Batchelder and filed a
concurring opinion in which he addressed the issue of jury

Judge Karen Nelson Moore dissented, arguing that Mrs. Moeller
presented enough evidence to prove Garlock's gaskets were a
"substantial factor" in Mr. Moeller's illness.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Developer Pleads Guilty to Safety Breaches
Beth Phillips, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri,
announced that the 41-year-old Anthony Crompton, a Kansas City,
Mo. Developer, pleaded guilty in federal court on Oct. 5, 2011 to
improperly removing and disposing of asbestos-containing materials
in connection with work at The Citadel Plaza Redevelopment Site,
according to a U.S. Attorney's Office press release dated Oct. 5,

Mr. Crompton pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Gary A.
Fenner to the charge contained in a June 29, 2010 federal
indictment.  He was an operator for The Citadel Plaza
Redevelopment Site and a real estate director for Community
Development Corporation of Kansas City.

Mr. Crompton directed the workers who performed demolition work at
the Citadel Plaza site, which is located in midtown Kansas City,
Mo., bounded by 60th Street on the north, 63rd Street on the
south, Prospect Avenue on the east, and Brooklyn Avenue on the

By pleading guilty on Oct. 5, 2011, Mr. Crompton admitted that he
violated the Clean Air Act in the process of removing and
disposing of regulated asbestos-containing materials from numerous
structures during the demolition and renovation of the Citadel
Plaza site from April 2001 to July 2006.

Under federal statutes, Mr. Crompton is subject to a sentence of
up to five years in federal prison without parole, plus a fine up
to US$250.000.  A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the
completion of a pre-sentence investigation by the U.S. Probation

This case is being prosecuted by First Assistant U.S. Attorney
David M. Ketchmark.  It was investigated by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honey Creek Sentenced for Clean Air Act Breach
A. David Sugar, 62, of New Middletown, Ohio, and his construction
company, Honey Creek Contracting Company, were sentenced in U.S.
District Court on Aug. 23, 2011, for violating the Clean Air Act
rules related to the proper removal and handling of asbestos,
according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release dated
Aug. 23, 2011.

Mr. Sugar was sentenced to serve a sentence of 36 months of
probation which will include spending the first 15 weekends in
jail followed by 21 weeks of home confinement with electronic
monitoring.  In addition, Mr. Sugar was fined US$10,000.

Honey Creek was fined US$30,000 and ordered to pay for baseline
X-rays for Honey Creek employees involved in the illegal asbestos

Carter M. Stewart, United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Ohio, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, Randall K.
Ashe, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and Scott J. Nally, Director of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, announced the sentences imposed by U.S.
District Court Judge Gregory L. Frost.

Mr. Sugar owned and operated Honey Creek, a construction company
located in Petersburg, Ohio.  In 2004, Mr. Sugar purchased the
former Weirton Steel Plant (WSP), in Steubenville, Ohio, for the
purpose of renovating the facility.  Prior to the renovation, the
WSP contained about 30,000 linear feet of asbestos pipe
insulation, and in one room commonly referred to as the Green
Room, there were 5,992 linear feet of asbestos pipe insulation.

Mr. Sugar and his company were aware of the existing asbestos when
they acquired the WSP facility.  Previously, on April 21, 2011,
Mr. Sugar and Honey Creek pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to violate the asbestos requirements established under
the Clean Air Act (asbestos NESHAPs) and four counts of asbestos
NESHAP violations.

In particular, the asbestos NESHAP violations concerned the
failure to notify the proper authorities prior at the start of
work at the WSP, the damaging of friable asbestos at the WSP, and
the failure to follow the proper work practice provisions of the
asbestos NESHAP at the WSP.

"This sentence sends the message that the illegal removal of
asbestos will be punished," said Randall K. Ashe, Special Agent in
Charge of EPA's criminal enforcement program in Ohio.  "It is
significant that as part of the sentence Honey Creek will pay for
medical tests for workers who were exposed to asbestos as a result
of this crime."

Mr. Stewart commended the cooperative investigation by federal and
state law enforcement agencies who investigated the case, and
Assistant United States Attorney J. Michael Marous, and Special
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brad J. Beeson with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency who prosecuted the case.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Fallon Local Admits to Clean Air Act Breaches
Franklin A. (Al) Bieri, a 52-year-old man from O'Fallon, Ill.,
pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2011, to violating The Clean Air Act in
U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Illinois, Stephen R. Wigginton, announced on
Oct. 5, 2011.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice press release dated
Oct. 5, the charges stem from Mr. Bieri's activities at the
Emerson Electric Facility, a seven acre site in Washington Park,
which Mr. Bieri purchased in order to demolish and salvage the
buildings on the site.

Mr. Bieri knew that the buildings on the site contained asbestos,
but, in April 2010, he used untrained workers who failed to use
proper removal and disposal procedures, such as wetting asbestos
to limit airborne emissions and proper labeling of asbestos waste
to alert others to the danger and ensure the waste went to an
appropriate section of the landfill.

Mr. Bieri admitted that he failed to provide written notification
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency at least 10
working days prior to beginning asbestos stripping and removal
work, an offense punishable under the Clean Air Act.

U.S. Attorney Wigginton said, "The safety of workers and the
public is something I take very seriously.  I encourage anyone
with information about illegal asbestos removal to contact the EPA
or my office so that these dangerous violators are stopped and

Asbestos is a declared hazardous air pollutant by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Mr. Bieri faces a penalty of up
to 5 years' imprisonment, a fine of up to US$250,000.00, or both,
and a term of supervised release of up to three years.

Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 13, 2012.  The guilty plea
follows an investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  The prosecution of the case is being handled by Assistant
U.S. Attorney Kevin F. Burke.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to OK Board Ruling in Kritenbrink Action
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will affirm the
Sept. 24, 2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which
denied Kenneth K. Kritenbrink service connection for asbestosis.

The case is styled Kenneth K. Kritenbrink, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-4433 on June 17, 2011.

Mr. Kritenbrink, a U.S. Navy veteran, worked for more than 40
years in the railroad industry including a short stint prior to
his enlistment in the Navy in February 1954.  He claimed that
while he was serving aboard the U.S.S. O'Brien from 1954 to 1957,
though not directly working with asbestos materials, he was
exposed to asbestos-covered pipes.

In denying service connection, however, the Board relied on both a
June 2004 private physician's report and an August 2006 VA
examination that found that Mr. Kritenbrink's asbestosis was
related to his work for a railroad company following service.

The Court will affirm the Board's Sept. 24, 2009, Board decision.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. District Court Issues Ruling in Fillers
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, issued
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled United States of
America v. Donald Fillers, et al.

Judge Curtis L. Collier entered judgment in Case No. 1:09-CR-144
on June 14, 2011.

Defendants Donald Fillers and the Watkins Street Project LLC were
charged with violations of various federal environmental laws
relating to the improper disposal of asbestos.  Defendants moved
to suppress asbestos-containing samples obtained from Defendants'
lot -- and all consequent "fruit of the poisonous tree" -- on the
ground that the samples were obtained in violation of the Fourth

These motions were referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge William B.
Mitchell Carter, who held a hearing and subsequently filed a
report & recommendation (R & R) recommending Defendants' motions
be denied.  Subsequently, Defendants filed a Third Motion to
Supplement Suppression Hearing Evidence.

Judge Carter filed an R & R recommending denying this motion, on
the ground that the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the
suppression issue.  The Court accepted and adopted both R & Rs
(Court File Nos. 219, 228).  Accordingly, Defendants' motions to
suppress and to supplement the suppression hearing evidence were

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Rome Lawsuit
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
decision of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which
dismissed the asbestos case of Elodie Granier Rome and Donald
Francis Rome against Dover Engineered Systems, Inc. and Sargent
Aerospace, Inc., along with their alleged liability insurer
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

The case is styled Elodie Granier Rome and Donald Francis Rome v.
Asbestos Defendants; Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc.,
(Formerly Avondale Industries, Inc., and Formerly Avondale
Shiyards, Inc.) and its Executive Officers, et al.

Judges Joan Bernard Armstrong, Charles R. Jones, and Dennis R.
Bagneris, Sr. entered judgment in Case No. 2010-CA-1645 on
June 16, 2011.

Liberty Mutual filed an appellee brief noting that it was sued
solely in its capacity as the alleged insurer of Dover and
adopting the arguments made in the Dover brief.  The Romes'
original petition was filed on Sept. 17, 2009, claiming personal
injury damages in connection with Mrs. Rome's contraction of
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.

The Romes alleged that Mrs. Rome was exposed to asbestos through
the work of Mr. Rome, her father-in-law, Joseph Orlando Rome, and
her brother-in-law, Joseph Roger Rome, all of whom allegedly came
into contact with asbestos while working at Avondale Shipyards,

The Romes argued asbestos exposure arising out of "asbestos-
containing products manufactured, sold, distributed and handled by
Arnot Marine, among others."  The Romes' petition named numerous
defendants, but the only ones involved in this appeal were those
dismissed by the trial court from this suit as a result of the
partial motion for summary judgment in favor of Dover Corporation,
Dover Engineered Systems, Inc. (f/k/a Dover Diversified, Inc.),
and Sargent Aerospace, Inc., along with Liberty Mutual Insurance

Under a joint motion filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in
this Court, Dover Corporation, Sargent Aerospace, Inc., and
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, this Court issued an Order on
Feb. 8, 2011, dismissing this appeal as it pertains to Dover
Corporation, Sargent Aerospace and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company in its capacity as the alleged insurer of Dover
Corporation and Sargent Aerospace, Inc.

In the same Order, this Court maintained this appeal as it
pertained to Dover Engineered Systems, Inc. and Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company in its capacity as the alleged insurer of Dover
Engineered Systems, Inc., which are the only appellees now

The pivotal issue raised by the plaintiffs in their petition
regarding the defendants is their allegation that the Dover
defendants were successors in interest to "Arnot Marine," and on
that basis were successors to Arnot Marine's asbestos liability
for exposing the plaintiffs to asbestos.

The motion for summary judgment which formed the basis for this
appeal was premised on the defendants' contention that they are
not the successors in interest to Arnot Marine which they alleged
to be a totally unrelated entity.  The trial court agreed with the
Dover defendants and dismissed the Romes' claims against them.

The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the Romes
could not prove causation.  That motion for summary judgment was

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs CBC Corp.'s Motion in Vedros Lawsuit
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, granted
CBC Corporation's motion to stay consideration of the motion to
remand, in an asbestos case filed by Sally Gros Vedros.

The case is styled Sally Gros Vedros v. Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc., et al.

District Judge Sarah S. Vance entered judgment in Civil Action No.
11-1198 on June 15, 2011.

Sally Gros Vedros, represented herself, while John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Esq., of Frilot L.L.C. in New Orleans, La., represented
Northrop Grummann Shipbuilding, Inc.

Ms. Vedros filed the instant action on Oct. 28, 2010, in Louisiana
state court, alleging that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure
to the asbestos-containing products of multiple defendants.  CBC,
Foster Wheeler, LLC and General Electric Company filed a notice of
removal on May 20, 2011.

Defendants also filed a "tag along" notice, seeking to transfer
this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to be included in MDL-875.  The MDL panel entered a
Conditional Transfer Order.  Ms. Vedros had opposed transfer to
the MDL.

On May 23, 2011, Ms. Vedros filed a motion to remand.  Defendants
oppose the motion to remand asserting the government contractor
immunity defense.  CBC also filed this motion to stay
consideration of the motion to remand pending a determination as
to the transfer of this case by the MDL panel.

Ms. Vedros opposed the stay, asserting that the proposed stay
would cause her prejudice.  On June 9, 2011, defendant Albert
Bossier filed a statement noting the death Ms. Vedros during the
pendency of this action.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Reverses Ruling in Continental Case
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York,
reversed the ruling of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
case involving asbestos styled Continental Casualty Company, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents v. Employers Insurance
Company of Wausau, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
Robert A. Keasbey Company, a corporation dissolved in 2001,

Judges Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick, and Roman entered judgment
in the case on June 2, 2011.

Insurers of dissolved asbestos insulation contractor brought
action seeking declaratory judgment regarding their obligations to
persons claiming asbestos injuries arising out of insured's
operations. Following bench trial, the New York County Supreme
Court denied relief, and insurers appealed.  The New York County
Supreme Court reversed.

Subsequently, the New York County Supreme Court declared that each
of the insurers had an equal duty to defend the contractor in past
and future asbestos-related personal injury actions, and appeal
was taken.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Todd Shipyard's Bid to Dismiss Suit
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
Todd Shipyard Corporation's motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit,
which is part of In Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No.
VI). The particular case is styled, Taylor v. Various, Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 10-80824 on June 20, 2011.

On June 17, 2011, it was ordered that the report and
recommendation issued by Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter,
filed on April 7, 2011, as to Defendant Todd Shipyards
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss was adopted.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Bozeman Lawsuit
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, reversed the
ruling of the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Caddo Louisiana, which granted the City of Shreveport's exception
of no cause of action, in an asbestos case filed by Corey Andrew
Bozeman and Matthew Kyle Bozeman.

The case is styled, Corey Andrew Bozeman and Matthew Kyle Bozeman,
Individually and On Behalf of Their Deceased Father, Jerry
Bozeman, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Union Carbide Corporation, et
al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Brown, Drew and Lolley entered judgment in Case No. 46,425-
CA on June 22, 2011.

Jerry Bozeman was employed by the City of Shreveport as a fireman
from 1965 until he retired on Dec. 31, 1998.  On Aug. 23, 2004,
Jerry Bozeman was diagnosed with "diffuse malignant mesothelioma,
desmoplastic type," from which he died on Feb. 11, 2005.

On Aug. 22, 2005, Corey and Matthew Bozeman filed suit alleging
that their father had contracted mesothelioma as a result of his
exposure to asbestos during his employment with the City as a

While employed as a firefighter with the City, Jerry Bozeman was
primarily housed at Fire Station No. 8, which was built in the
1920s.  The appellants took the position that the fire station was
constructed from a variety of asbestos-containing products and was
in a chronic state of disrepair.

As a result, the appellants stated that their father was
constantly exposed to those asbestos products.  Additionally, they
contended that their father was exposed to asbestos from the
asbestos-insulated fire hoses.

Among several defendants, the Bozemans named the City in its
capacity as Jerry Bozeman's employer under the theories of
negligence and strict liability.  Specifically, the Bozemans
sought recovery from the City for wrongful death damages as well
as a survival action claim.

The lawsuit also named several manufacturers and suppliers of
asbestos-containing materials in negligence and strict liability;
however, those claims are not before the court on appeal.

Subsequently, the City filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that the Bozemans' claims fell under the Louisiana
Workers' Compensation Act.  The trial court heard argument on the
City's filings and ultimately denied the motion for summary
judgment.  However, the trial court granted the City's exception
of no cause of action as it pertained to the Bozemans' wrongful
death claims and any claim for non-intentional torts.

The judgment was rendered on May 21, 2007 and signed on Oct. 8,
2007 (2007 judgment).  On June 18, 2009, the Bozemans filed in the
trial court a motion for reconsideration of the 2007 judgment.
The motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court in
November 2009.

On April 12, 2010, the Bozemans filed a motion to designate the
2007 judgment as final for purposes of appeal.  After a hearing on
the matter, the 2007 judgment was designated a final judgment on
Oct. 8, 2010. This appeal ensued.

The 2007 judgment in favor of the City of Shreveport was reversed
with respect to the Bozemans' claim for non-intentional tort, and
this matter was remanded to the trial court for further

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Ruling in General Refractories
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
rulings in an asbestos case styled General Refractories Company v.
First State Insurance Co., et al. (Lexington Insurance Company)
(AIU Insurance Company).

District Judge Ludwig entered judgment in Civil Action No. 04-3509
on June 21, 2011.

The action was remanded by the Court of Appeals upon reversal of a
Sept. 27, 2005 order that dismissed the action for lack of
necessary parties.

General Refractories Company sued 14 insurance carriers for a
declaration of excess insurance coverage against asbestos-related
claims.  A manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-containing
products, GRC is a defendant in numerous asbestos-related suits
throughout the United States.  Two of those insurance carriers are
Lexington Insurance Company and AIU Insurance Company.

As to each of those defendants, GRC moved for partial summary
judgment, contending that their policies of insurance did not
contain an exclusion pertinent to asbestos products.  Before those
motions were ruled on, Lexington and AIU were permitted to amend
their joint answer to add counterclaims for reformation and
rescission of the policies.  As of June 8, 2011, GRC moved for
partial summary judgment as to those counterclaims on the same

Discovery has been completed, and the following facts were not in
dispute.  None of the policies or a policy endorsement had an
exclusion for asbestos-related claims.  Both defendants conceded
as much, but asserted the intent of the parties to include such an
exclusion can be shown by extrinsic evidence.

That issue -- whether these policies should be deemed to contain
asbestos-related exclusions -- was presented in GRC's third
pending motion for partial summary judgment and was deferred.  The
June 21, 2011 orders held that there is was exclusion stated in
the policies or an endorsement.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Decision in Cat Iron Lawsuit
The U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, Urbana
Division, has ruled in a case involving asbestos styled Cat Iron,
Inc., Plaintiff v. Bodine Environmental Services, Inc., Defendant.
Judge Michael P. McCuskey entered judgment in Case No. 10-CV-2102
on June 15, 2011.

Bodine Environmental Services, Inc. filed an Amended Motion for
Summary Judgment on Feb. 24, 2011.  Cat Iron Inc. filed a Response
on March 31, 2011, and Bodine filed its Reply on April 14, 2011.

Cat Iron and Bodine entered into a contract whereby Bodine would
inspect one of Cat Iron's facilities for asbestos and issue a
written report to Cat Iron.  Bodine, an Illinois corporation,
submitted a proposal for a complete National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) asbestos inspection and
comprehensive report of the findings of the inspection of the
Intermet Facility in Decatur, Ill., with the cost not to exceed

On May 30, 2008, Robb Davis, Cat Iron's co-owner, on behalf of Cat
Iron, a Pennsylvania corporation, accepted and signed the
proposal.  On July 7, 2008, Bodine sent its asbestos inspection
report to Cat Iron and billed Cat Iron for the asbestos
inspection, sampling, and written report.

Cat Iron alleged that Bodine failed to identify several asbestos
containing materials at the Decatur facility. Cat Iron alleged
Bodine failed to fully perform its part of the contract made on
May 30, 2008 with Cat Iron.  Cat Iron alleged damages in excess of
US$75,000 on each of the four counts contained in its First
Amended Complaint.

Bodine filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim to
Cat Iron's First Amended Complaint on Aug. 18, 2010.  Bodine plead
three affirmative defenses.

On Oct. 5, 2010, during discovery in this case, Bodine served upon
Cat Iron a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Notice of

Cat Iron's co-owner Robb Davis was produced under the Rule
30(b)(6) Notice by Plaintiff.  No other person was produced by Cat
Iron under the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice.  Mr. Davis' deposition was
taken on Jan. 18, 2011.

When he was examined by Cat Iron's counsel, Mr. Davis testified
that he had no legal training, could not give a definition of
"willful and wanton misconduct," and could not identify "what fact
may or may not tend to prove or disprove somebody's willful and
wanton misconduct."

Mr. Davis stated that he became aware asbestos was still in the
building after Bodine had performed its inspection and removal
when David Stowers of Parkland Environmental pointed out
additional remaining asbestos to Mr. Davis.  Mr. Davis stated the
remaining asbestos was easy to see.

It was ordered that Bodine's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment
was denied in part.  It was denied as to the application of the
economic loss (Moorman) doctrine and commercial losses argument.
The damages limitation clause, however, is not violative of
settled Illinois public policy.

Ruling was reserved on whether a genuine issue of material fact
existed as to wanton and willful negligence on Bodine's part. If
it is shown that a genuine issue of material is present, the
damages limitation clause is void, under Illinois law, and the
case may continue.  If no genuine issue of material fact exists,
the limitations clause applies, limiting damages to US$6,100, and
this court will be deprived of subject matter jurisdiction.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Bondex, SPHC
RPM International Inc. says that Bondex International, Inc. and
Specialty Products Holding Corp. are defendants in various
asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state
courts, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Oct. 7, 2011 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related
diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-containing

On May 31, 2010, Bondex and SPHC filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  SPHC is the parent
company of Bondex and is also the parent company for various
operating companies that are not part of the reorganization
filing, including Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Corp.; Day-
Glo Color Corp.; Dryvit Holdings, Inc.; Guardian Protection
Products Inc.; Kop-Coat Inc.; TCI, Inc. and RPM Wood Finishes
Group, Inc.

SPHC and Bondex -- the filing entities -- took the action to
permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC-
related products.  As a result of the filing, all Bondex and SPHC
asbestos personal injury lawsuits have been stayed due to the
imposition of an automatic stay applicable in bankruptcy cases.
In addition, at the request of SPHC and Bondex, the bankruptcy
court has entered orders staying all claims against RPM
International Inc. and its affiliates that are derivative of the
asbestos claims against SPHC and Bondex.

Through the Chapter 11 proceedings, the filing entities intend
ultimately to establish a trust in accordance with section 524(g)
of the Bankruptcy Code and seek the imposition of a channeling
injunction that will direct all future SPHC-related and Bondex-
related claims to the trust.

Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the filing entities had engaged in
a strategy of litigating asbestos-related products liability
claims brought against them.  Claims paid during the year ended
May 31, 2010, prior to the bankruptcy filing, were US$92.6
million, which included defense-related payments during the year
of US$42.6 million.

No claims have been paid since the bankruptcy filing and it is not
contemplated that any claims will be paid until a plan of
reorganization is confirmed and an asbestos trust is established
and operating.

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. operates businesses and
product lines that manufacture and sell a variety of specialty
paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives.  The Company manages its portfolio by organizing its
businesses and product lines into two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable segment.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex, SPHC Appeal in Insurance Action Ongoing
The appeal from RPM International Inc.'s Bondex International,
Inc. subsidiary and Specialty Products Holding Corp. over an
asbestos-related insurance case is ongoing in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

During calendar year 2003, Bondex and SPH's third-party insurers
claimed exhaustion of coverage.  On July 3, 2003, certain of RPM's
subsidiaries, including Bondex and SPH, filed the case of Bondex
International, Inc. et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity
Company et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-1322 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio.

The case was filed for declaratory judgment, breach of contract
and bad faith against the named third-party insurers, challenging
their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related
claims had been exhausted.  On Dec. 1, 2008, the trial court
denied the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and
granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment against
plaintiffs, including Bondex and SPH, and entered judgment on all
remaining claims and counterclaims, and dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs, including Bondex and SPH, appealed the trial court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which
appeal is currently pending.  The Sixth Circuit had initially
stayed the appeal as a result of the bankruptcy filing, but has
since lifted the stay and the appeal process has resumed.

Plaintiffs' brief was filed on March 30, 2011, and the defendants'
reply briefs were filed on May 31, 2011.  Oral arguments regarding
the appeal are scheduled to take place on Oct. 12, 2011.

Bondex has not included any potential benefits from the ongoing
insurance coverage litigation in calculating its asbestos
liability.  The Company is not a party to this insurance

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. operates businesses and
product lines that manufacture and sell a variety of specialty
paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives.  The Company manages its portfolio by organizing its
businesses and product lines into two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable segment.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bromley Contractor Fined for Safety Violations
Fadil Adil, a building contractor from Coniston Road, Bromley,
London, has been fined for running a construction site that led to
workers being exposed to asbestos-containing materials, according
to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Oct. 6, 2011.

Mr. Adil was prosecuted by the HSE for the way work was carried
out on a construction site he was in charge of, on Bromley High
Street between June 21 and June 29, 2010.

The project involved the demolition of a building which had a
restaurant on the ground floor and flats above.  Asbestos
insulating boards in the restaurant's ceiling were broken up
during the demolition, which Mr. Adil was overseeing.  Three
workmen demolished the building using sledgehammers and hand-
operated breakers, meaning they could have been exposed to
asbestos fibers.

The HSE investigation found that the defendant did not have a
license to work with asbestos, nor was he trained in construction
management.  At no point did the defendant carry out an asbestos
survey, nor did he provide any guidance to the workmen regarding
the presence of asbestos.

HSE Inspector Ian Seabrook said, "Sadly, this kind of incident is
all too familiar because the defendant's actions meant that his
colleagues were more than likely exposed to asbestos fibers.

"The dangers of asbestos are well known; it is the single greatest
cause of work-related deaths in the UK with around 1,000 tradesmen
dying each year from asbestos-related diseases.

"Anyone working with these sorts of materials has to commission an
asbestos survey to ascertain the level of work needed and then
have asbestos removed in a controlled manner by a licensed

At the City of London Magistrates' Court on Oct. 6, 2011, Fadil
Adil pleaded guilty to breaching the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006, and the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007.  He was fined GBP19,300 and ordered to pay costs
of GBP7,654.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Ishman Ballard Site to Cost $7,875
The Board of Commissioners of Coweta County, Ga., voted
unanimously on Oct. 4, 2011, to have the low-bidder, Resurgence
Demolition, remove asbestos from four abandoned buildings at a
dumping site on Ishman Ballard Road, for a cost of US$7,875, The
Newnan Times-Herald reports.

Previous estimates suggested the asbestos abatement would cost
almost US$14,000.

Public Buildings Director Tom Little has been recommending
rejection of the bids because they did not include all required
documentation, but county staff contacted the bidders to try and
get more information.

"The only thing that Resurgence had failed to include was the
proof of business license," said County Administrator Theron Gay.
That proof was received before the meeting.

Mr. Gay said the board could approve the bid or could reject all
bids and rebid. If the project is rebid, "we would also like to
include two options," he said.  Those options would be the removal
of the asbestos and the actual demolition of the four buildings.

Mr. Gay said county staff members were at the site on Oct. 3,
2011, and the illegal dumping continues.

Commissioner Al Smith, who represents the area and has been trying
to get the site cleaned up, said his preference was to go ahead
and approve the asbestos removal and then work toward getting
prices for demolition, as opposed to "re-bidding the whole thing."
He made a motion to that effect, which was seconded by
Commissioner Tim Lassetter.

The bid only relates to the asbestos in the four buildings, Mr.
Gay said. There are also some asbestos pipes on site.

Commissioner Bob Blackburn suggested that, out of an "abundance of
caution," a Coweta fire engine be on site during the demolition to
spray down the buildings to reduce any dust -- especially any
asbestos that might remain.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Judge Dismissed From $322MM Asbestos Case
The Mississippi Supreme Court on Oct. 4, 2011, said that Smith
County Circuit Court Judge Eddie Bowen should recuse himself from
further proceedings in an asbestos lawsuit, which produced a
US$322 million verdict against Union Carbide Corporation and
Chevron Phillips Chemical, Legal Newsline reports.

Jude Bowen had excused potential jurors who had connections to
asbestos litigations through immediate family members, but did not
disclose that his father had filed two asbestos suits.

The US$322 million figure represents the largest single verdict in
American asbestos litigation history.  The jury awarded US$300
million in punitive damages to Thomas Brown Jr.

Like Judge Bowen's father, Mr. Brown claimed asbestos products
were defective in design and in warning.  Judge Bowen's father and
mother settled their claims with many defendants, including Union
Carbide, after requesting US$1 million in the complaint.

The motion says, "The basis of the judge's family claims against
Union Carbide was the judge's father's alleged exposure to
Calidria Chrysotile asbestos fiber mined, milled and manufactured
by the company.  Plaintiff Brown likewise alleged exposure to the
exact same Calidria chrysotile asbestos (mined from the same
source and milled in the same manner) as the judge's father."

Judge Bowen's father also sued Johns Manville, which was the
asbestos supplier for CP Chem.

The state Constitution shows three instances for the
disqualification of a judge, one of which is any matter "where the
parties, or either of them, shall be connected with him by
affinity or consanguinity, or where he may be interested in the
same, except by the consent of the judge and of the parties."

The company claims Judge Bowen acted with bias against it in
several ways:

-- His demeanor toward certain attorneys and witnesses;

-- His rulings on evidentiary issues;

-- His comments about the weight of the evidence;

-- His coaching of Mr. Brown's attorneys in their examination of
   witnesses and with regard to objections; and

-- His rulings that were "simply incongruous with clear
   principles of Mississippi law."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrow Landlord Fined GBP7T for Disposal Breach
Abdul Hamid Rashid Bowar, a 50-year-old landlord from Stanmore,
Harrow, London, was forced to pay nearly GBP7,000 after dumping
asbestos in an alleyway used by residents and children, the Harrow
Observer reports.

The asbestos was fly-tipped in the alleyway about 300 yards away
from the property it was removed from by Mr. Bowar.  He pleaded
guilty to two offenses under the Environmental Protection Act of
failing to ensure the proper disposal of the asbestos waste and
failing to keep records.

Mr. Bowar had previously pleaded not guilty and opted for a jury
trail before later changing his plea on Sept. 27, 2011.

Harrow Crown Court heard that Mr. Bowar arranged for the asbestos
sheets to be removed from his property in Oxleay Road, Rayners
Lane, in July 2010, and dumped nearby at the back of homes in
Alexandra Avenue.

A council CCTV camera captured two men dumping the asbestos sheets
from a red van belonging to Mr. Bowar and when asked by council
officers to explain the images, he said he did not know the names
of the men and that he had expected the waste to be disposed of

Mr. Bowar was fined a total of GBP2,000 for both offenses and also
directed to pay legal and asbestos clearance costs of GBP4,781.88.
He also had to pay a GBP15 victim surcharge.

Portfolio holder for environment and community safety, Councilor
Phillip O'Dell said, "The Council works hard to keep Harrow clean
and safe, and that includes taking the strongest possible action
against those responsible for fly-tipping.  It is beyond belief
that anyone would dump hazardous waste in an alleyway used by
children and residents.

"This was such a dangerous and irresponsible act, regardless of
the nuisance and cost to local taxpayers who ultimately foot the
bill for cleaning up fly-tipping.  This prosecution should serve
as a severe warning that even if you are not throwing the waste
away yourself, you are responsible for where it goes."

Harrow Council arranged for the waste, which officers say posed a
significant hazard to residents, to be removed by a licensed
asbestos remover and safely disposed of.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Cleared From Seoul Baseball Stadium Site
Seoul, South Korea-employed workers, who were wearing dustproof
clothing, on Oct. 7, 2011, skimmed off crushed olivine soil
containing asbestos laid inside Jamsil Baseball Stadium in Songpa
District in Seoul, The Hankyoreh reports.

Seoul plans to replace 614 tons and 2275 cubic meters of soil in
question laid along baseline stretching from home plate to bases
with sericite soil by Oct. 22, 2011, before the Korean World
Series.  The replacement work in other stadiums will proceed
during the off-season.

However, environmental organization members have criticized the
authorities for their late response.

According to Asian Citizen's Center for Environment and Health
(ACCEH) and the Department of Occupational & Environmental Health
at Seoul National University's School of Public Health, a recently
examination of soil samples taken from baseball stadiums at Jamsil
in Seoul, Sajik in Busan, Munhak in Incheon, Suwon and Guri in
Gyeonggi Province found asbestos to be present.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Tradesmen to Get Free Awareness Training
Thousands of tradesmen are to get free asbestos awareness training
in a bid to tackle ignorance about Britain's biggest industrial
killer, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release
dated Oct. 6, 2011.

The HSE, in partnership with industry, set a poignant target of
4,000 hours of face-to-face training to be donated during
September 2011 -- one hour for each life lost to asbestos related
illnesses in an average year.  A target for a further 4,000 hours
of online training was also set.

But thanks to an overwhelming response from training companies,
the target has been smashed by more than 50% -- and more than
4,000 at-risk tradesmen will now be able to take up the offer of
free training.

About 7,987 hours of classroom training have been offered up along
with 5,570 web-based hours, which includes courses in Romanian,
Russian and Polish -- equating to training for 4,020 tradesmen.

The free training is available throughout October 2011 and
November 2011 and is aimed at those most likely to disturb the
asbestos fibers as they go about their work -- tradesmen such as
joiners, electricians and plumbers, around 20 of whom lose their
lives to asbestos-related diseases every week.

The asbestos training pledge initiative is part of HSE's Hidden
Killer campaign to raise awareness that asbestos is not just an
historical problem -- around half a million non-domestic premises
still contain it.

Said Karen Clayton, HSE's director for long latency health risks,
said, "This training will save lives by helping to tackle
ignorance about the risks posed by working with asbestos.  It will
help prevent this hidden killer from claiming another generation
of British tradesmen.

"The response has been overwhelming and has completely exceeded
our expectations.  There's been a real groundswell of support from
a whole range of training providers.

"We expect demand for the courses to high and urge tradesmen to go
to www.hse.gov.uk and get signed up now.  A few hours in a
classroom or in front of a computer could add decades to someone's
lives. The courses literally could be a life saver."

Those wanting to sign up to free training can see what is being
pledged in their area by following links on HSE's Web site at

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rickmansworth Woman's Death Linked to Asbestos
A Hatfield Coroner's Court inquest, held on Oct. 6, 2011, heard
that the death of 62-year-old Eugenia Warren, of Rickmansworth,
Hertfordshire, England, was related to second-hand exposure to
asbestos, the Watford Observer reports.

Mrs. Warren passed away at The Peace Hospice, in Watford, after a
short illness, on Aug. 30, 2011.  The court heard that she had
developed a sarcomatoid mesothelioma, caused by exposure to

Coroner Edward Thomas said it was a possibility Mrs. Warren had
been exposed to asbestos through washing the clothes of her
father, who was a builder.

Mr. Thomas recorded a narrative verdict of death by exposure to
asbestos arising from Mrs. Warren's father's exposure to asbestos
at work.


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., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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 $575 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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *