---

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

             Friday, June 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 128

                             Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Queensland Flood Victims Attend Class Action Meetings
BEST BUY: Sued Over False Advertising on Toshiba Laptops
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over Cell Sites Dismissed
DARVON: Class Action Plaintiffs Put Hopes on Sixth Circuit
DAVITA INC: Failed to Pay All Hourly & Overtime Wages, Suit Says

DELL INC: Appeal From Approval of "Brazil" Suit Deal Pending
DEPUY: FDA Panel Reviews Metal-On-Metal Hip Replacement Implants
EASYLINK SERVICES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate 2 Suits
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Continues to Face MERS-Related Class Suits
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP: May Face Class Action Over School Bus Fees

INDIANA: Judge Upholds Sex Offenders' Facebook Ban
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Monthly Subscription Plans
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Support Call Center Charges
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Faces Suit Over High Speed Internet Service
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Settled SMS Messages-Related Suit in Sept.

INTERNET GOLD: Wage Refund Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in April
INTERNET GOLD: Withdrawal of Inappropriate Payments Claim Allowed
INTERNET GOLD: Court Approved Withdrawal of Privacy Suit vs. Unit
ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Court Approved Suit Settlement in March
ITURAN LOCATION: Still Defends TPCA-Violation Suit vs. Unit

J.CREW GROUP: Acquisition-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
JA SOLAR: Paid $4.5-Mil. in 2011 to Settle Securities Suits
JOS. A. BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Perpetual Sale Prices
JOS. A. BANK: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Court Remands Securities Class Suit

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Mo.
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends 12 Product Liability Suits
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Settlement of Suit Over 401(k) Plan Approved
KAO USA: Accused of Misrepresenting Jergens Moisturizer Product
LG DISPLAY: Antitrust Suits Still Pending in U.S. and Canada

LHC GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in Louisiana
LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Appeal
MERCK & CO: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
MERCK & CO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Vaccine Data

METLIFE INSURANCE: Defends Suits Over Improper Sales Practices
MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Narrows Claims in Phone Tracking Suit
MINDRAY MEDICAL: Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed in December
NISSAN MOTOR: Wants Transmission Defect Class Action Dismissed
NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois

NORTHERN TRUST: Investigation on Lending Program Ended in April
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Suit
NSP-MINNESOTA: Appeal from "Comer" Class Suit Dismissal Pending
NSP-WISCONSIN: Comer's Appeal from Class Suit Dismissal Pending
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania

PPG INDUSTRIES: Lens Monopoly MDL Still Pending in Florida
PPG INDUSTRIES: Antitrust Suit Settlement Funds Distributed in 1Q
PRIMO WATER: Class Action Plaintiffs File Additional Details
PUBLIC SERVICE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Comer" Suit
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Charges

SAKS INC: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over FLSA Violations
SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL: Faces Overdraft Fraud Class Action
SERVPRO: Recalls 24T Notus Air Movers/Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
SOUTH WEST NOVA: Health Authority Sued for Patient Data Breach
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Appeal Dismissal of "Comer" Suit Pending

STRAYER EDUCATION: "Kinnett" Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Suit
TEREX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA and Securities Suits
THUNDER BAY CITY, ON: Watkins Law to File C$500MM Class Action
TOYOTA: Bid for Leave to Appeal Economic Claims Dismissal Rejected
TRAVELZOO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y.

TUESDAY MORNING: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Employees' Suit
TUESDAY MORNING: Motion to Certify Class in Alabama Suit Pending
ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: One Action Remaining in Explosion-Related Suit
USG CORP: Expects Hearing on Knauf-related Suit Deal in July

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Indemnification Suit v. ADT to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Dismisses Exposure Suit v. Gardner Denver
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Ct. Overturns Judgment v. Simpson Timber
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suit v. Sexauer Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Plaintiff to Challenge Jurisdiction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses $6.6MM Judgment v. Union Carbide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had Gross Loss Reserves of $466.7MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $47MM Reserves for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Defending PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Unit Still Defending Claims & Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Unit Liable in Confirmed Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,018 Open Claims End March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott International Still Defending Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Continues to Defend 225 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer's Reconsideration Bid in Quigley Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Units Still Defending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Posted $321,000 Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Posted $3MM Liability End March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Had 100 Pending Cases at April 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Defending Asbestos-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cera Says Contamination at St George's Contained
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Factors in 8,000 Yearly Cancer Deaths in UK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Ravenswood Hospital Abatement Up in July
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASC Awards B&B "Friend of the Community" Honors

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement of Old Davies Center Nears Completion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BLF Raises Fibro Awareness in Breathe Easy Week
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IMP Founder to Be Honored By Meso Foundation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Knightstone Assures Hazmat Container Is Secured
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Reaches Out to Husband's Peers for Info

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Stops Work at Barangaroo Development, Again
ASBESTOS UPDATE: A Call to Lawmakers to Give EPA True Power
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada's Effort to Aid Chrysotile Industry Bared
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manassas Historic Home Set for Abatement in July
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Site Operational Unless Risk Is Confirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMWU Plans to Set Up National Asbestos Authority
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts State Low Risk Level At Parliament House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Violations Found in Dunwoody School Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TN Landfill Affirms Authority to Accept Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delegate Lobbies Action to Reduce ARD Death Toll

                          *********

AUSTRALIA: Queensland Flood Victims Attend Class Action Meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ava Benny-Morrison, writing for Fraser Chronicle, reports that
downstream residents and business-owners, hit hard by last year's
historic flood deluge, have thrown their support behind a possible
class action against the State Government.

Brisbane-based firm Maurice Blackburn and litigation funder IMF
Australia are investigating a claim with Queensland's flood
victims over actions of the Wivenhoe Dam operators between January
7 and 12 last year.

The investigation is focused on whether the State Government and
the flood operations engineers breached any duty of care by not
causing greater releases of water earlier in the flood event,
which could have reduced peak release rates and peak flood levels.

Hundreds of people turned out to meetings in Brisbane on June 24
and June 25 regarding the progress of the class action.

A majority of the crowd were residents and business owners from
flood affected areas of Ipswich, Brisbane and the Lockyer Valley.

The class action alleges the Wivenhoe Dam operators waited too
long to release water and failed to protect businesses and
landowners.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Damian Scattini said the vast
majority of people who attended the meetings had joined forces.

The firm had engaged experts to assess aspects of the claim and
they were due to provide response in July.

"We will report back by the end of July on whether we will proceed
with our action, and I expect we will," he said.

"It is a big effort but it is very important case."

Tuck Thompson, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that firms
mounting a class-action lawsuit against the Queensland Government
have spent $1 million on experts to prove Wivenhoe Dam operators
were negligent in flooding thousands of homes and businesses last
year.

Mr. Scattini told a packed crowd at Indooroopilly Bowls Club that
"overconfident" dam operators failed to follow their manual or
monitor the weather properly in the lead-up to the flood.

Three US-based experts in dam and hydro-dynamics are preparing
detailed reports and modelling that will demonstrate much of the
flood damage was caused by late releases that could have avoided
with more prudent management.

About 3,400 people have already signed for the "no win, no pay"
suit, which potentially could cost the state more than $1 billion.

The experts' modelling will show which areas would not have
flooded or would have suffered substantially less damage if the
dam operators had acted differently.

People with properties that would have been damaged no matter what
the dam operators did will not be represented in the class action,
which is likely to be filed in Queensland.

The class action will seek only actual damages not "pain and
suffering" and compensation received from other sources might be
deducted from the claims, Mr. Scattini said.  He confirmed the
state was building a legal war chest and firming its legal
position.

"I'm sure they'll find money to fight us," he said.

The state's inquiry into the floods provided "useful sworn
testimony" for the lawsuit, with dam operators "in thick mud at
the moment".

He doubted the state would pass legislation to limit a court
payout.

Only a handful of the 200-plus people at the meeting raised their
hands when asked if they had been taken care of by their insurance
companies.


BEST BUY: Sued Over False Advertising on Toshiba Laptops
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Best Buy and Toshiba
deceptively advertise Toshiba laptop and notebook computers as
having battery life "up to" an unrealistic number of hours, a
class action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Herron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 34-2012-00126518 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/26/NottheBest.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          Elaine W. Yan, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over Cell Sites Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on June 26 disclosed that a purported class
action filed against the Company and two other cellular operators,
in December 2007, was dismissed without prejudice, at the request
of the parties.

The purported class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs
alleging that the defendants have created environmental hazards by
unlawfully building cell sites and therefore demanded that the
defendants will compensate the public for certain damages,
dismantle existing unlawfully built cell sites and refrain from
unlawfully building new cell sites.  Had the lawsuit been
certified as a class action, the compensation claimed from the
defendants was estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS1 billion.

Under the parties' agreement, which was approved by the court, the
defendants will make a donation to certain non-profit
organizations in an amount which is not material to the Company.


DARVON: Class Action Plaintiffs Put Hopes on Sixth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that inundated with calls about
serious heart ailments linked to the prescription painkillers
Darvon and Darvocet, the plaintiffs bar once predicted that
thousands of claims might be filed against the manufacturers of
those drugs.  A year later, the once-promising class action now
depends on a Hail Mary pass to the Sixth Circuit.


DAVITA INC: Failed to Pay All Hourly & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayalinda Bernal, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. DaVita, Inc., doing business as DaVita
Soledad Dialysis; Soledad Dialysis Center, LLC doing business as
Soledad Dialysis; Mariah Silva; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. M117069 (Calif. Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., April 6, 2012)
is brought to seek compensation for all wages and penalties due to
the Class Members during the "Class Period," which begins four
years before the commencement of the action through the date on
which each class or subclass is confirmed.

Class Members are identifiable, similarly situated persons
employed by the Defendants during the Class Period, Ms. Bernal
asserts.  She alleges that during the Class Period, each Defendant
maintained a consistent and uniform policy of failing to pay
employees, including her and the Class Members, all hourly wages
and overtime wages, and failing to pay wages on time.

Ms. Bernal was an employee of the Defendants from February 2008 to
November 30, 2011.

DaVita Inc. and Soledad Dialysis Center are Delaware corporations,
conducting business throughout the state of California.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, identities, capacities
and relationships of the Doe Defendants.

DaVita Inc., et al., removed the lawsuit on June 22, 2012, from
the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Monterey,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
DaVita is a citizen of the states of Delaware and Colorado, and
not of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:12-cv-03255 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          FITZPATRICK, SPINI & SWANSTON
          838 South Main Street, Suite E
          Salinas, CA 93901
          Telephone: (831) 755-1311
          Facsimile: (831) 755-1319

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Becki D. Graham, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com
                  becki.graham@ogletreedeakins.com


DELL INC: Appeal From Approval of "Brazil" Suit Deal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Dell Inc.'s settlement of the class
action lawsuit initiated by Chad Brazil and Steven Seick remains
pending, according to the Company's May 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 4, 2012.

Chad Brazil and Steven Seick filed a class action a lawsuit
against Dell in March 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Chad Brazil and Steven Seick v
Dell Inc.).  The plaintiffs allege that Dell advertised discounts
on its products from false "regular" prices, in violation of
California law.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
disgorgement of profits from the alleged false advertising,
injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  In
December 2010, the District Court certified a class consisting of
all California residents who had purchased certain products
advertised with a former sales price on the consumer segment of
Dell's Web site during an approximately four year period between
March 2003 and June 2007.  During the first quarter of Fiscal
2012, the plaintiffs and Dell reached a class-wide settlement in
principle regarding the dispute on terms that are not material to
Dell, and on October 28, 2011, the District Court granted final
approval of the settlement.  Since the final approval, an objector
to the settlement has filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to approval of the
settlement.

While there can be no assurances with respect to litigation, Dell
believes it is unlikely that the settlement will be overturned on
appeal.


DEPUY: FDA Panel Reviews Metal-On-Metal Hip Replacement Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexi J. Hazam, a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, attended the June 27, 2012 public hearing before a U.S. Food
and Drug Administration advisory panel convened to examine data on
the risks and benefits of all-metal replacement hips and issued
the following comment on the proceedings:

"The hearings indicate that the FDA is finally giving metal-on-
metal hips the close scrutiny they deserve. Manufacturers put many
of these hips, including the DePuy ASR and Pinnacle Ultamet, on
the market without conducting clinical studies. This had
disastrous results with the now-recalled ASR, which has seriously
injured thousands of patients. The FDA should ensure that doctors
and patients have up-to-date, accurate information about these
products, to enable proper treatment and ensure that such
disasters are not repeated in the future."

Ms. Hazam and Lieff Cabraser represent hip patients across
America, including patients who received the DePuy ASR and
Pinnacle Ultramet implants. Due to an allegedly defective design,
the metal implants in many of these patients have prematurely
failed, forcing the patients to undergo painful revision surgery
to replace the faulty implants and, for some, producing life-
altering injuries.

One Lieff Cabraser client testified before the FDA advisory panel
at the June 27 hearing. She underwent hip replacement surgery in
2008. As she testified:

After the ASR recall, my surgeon ordered blood work, which came
back toxic for cobalt and chromium. Later, an MRI indicated that I
had fluid pockets around my implant. Quickly, I was overtaken by
the threat of loss of the sense of health that I had enjoyed. My
doctor recommended revision surgery, which I had in July, 2011. He
found metal-stained fluid and tissue in my hip.

Several months post-revision, I continued to experience pain and I
was not walking well. In the 12th week, my hip dislocated. I have
never experienced such excruciating pain. After attempts by two
surgeons at two hospitals and a wait of 17 hours, my hip was
finally reset. I was forced to wear a large waist-to-thigh brace
for six weeks. I have not experienced a pain-free day since my
revision surgery and continue to take medication to manage it. The
intense recovery has placed severe strain on my other hip that now
needs to be replaced. As if this weren't enough, my doctor
informed me that my hip dislocation puts me at a greater risk for
future dislocations and perhaps other surgeries.

It is impossible to describe how devastating this experience has
been. I want very much to return to an active lifestyle and to be
able to function well personally and professionally. The knowledge
that this might not be possible for me leaves me depressed and
anxious.

Nonetheless, in these bizarre circumstances, I consider myself
relatively lucky. My doctor ordered necessary testing right after
the recall which revealed that my ASR was failing. Many other
people still have ASRs or other metal-on-metal hips still on the
market in them, which may be damaging their bodies silently. These
people still have to live with the fear that their hip could fail.
At least the toxic ASR is out of me.

When I think about the fact that DePuy was able to market the ASR
hip without pre-market clinical studies, I feel like a human
guinea pig. This loophole can create a pathway for greed and
ethical lapses, culminating in unnecessary health care costs, lost
wages and productivity, and most especially, human suffering. When
I read news articles indicating DePuy was aware of problems with
the ASR prior to the time I was implanted with it, but kept
heavily promoting it and failed to warn doctors and patients until
years later, my sense of outrage increases. DePuy's recall website
for doctors and patients, cited in the FDA's materials for this
meeting, continues to say that the revision rate for the ASR is
12-13%, which is high enough, but recent UK joint registry reports
and published studies suggest much higher rates. Doctors and
patients may thus still lack up-to-date information to enable
proper monitoring and treatment.

I grieve the life I had prior to revision surgery. I applaud you
for caring enough to listen to these stories today. We speak for
thousands. I respectfully urge the FDA to increase its pre-market
and post-market surveillance of medical devices generally and
metal-on-metal hips in particular, so that others do not have to
go through what I have. Thank you.

      Legal Resources for Injured All-Metal Hip Patients

If you or a family member are experiencing problems with a DePuy
metal hip implant -- the ASR or Pinnacle Ultramet with metal
liner, please visit http://www.depuymetalhiprecall.comto learn
more about the DePuy hip recall litigation. You may also contact a
Lieff Cabraser injury attorney at
http://lieffcabraser.com/forms.php?id=572or call us toll-free at
1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Lexi J. Hazam.

We welcome the opportunity to review your claim. We will respond
promptly and there is no charge or any obligation on your part to
retain our firm as your attorney.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Recognized as "one of the nation's premier plaintiff's firms" by
The American Lawyer magazine, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP is a sixty-plus attorney law firm with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  For the last eight
consecutive years, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff
Cabraser as one of the top plaintiff's law firms in America.

Source/Contact

Lexi Hazam
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
415 956-1000


EASYLINK SERVICES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate 2 Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
EasyLink Services International Corporation is awaiting a court
decision on plaintiffs' motion to consolidate two class action
lawsuits pending in Georgia, according to the Company's May 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On May 1, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Open Text Corporation ("Open
Text"), and Epic Acquisition Sub Inc., an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Open Text ("Merger Sub").  Under the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
including the requirement that the Company's stockholders approve
the adoption of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged
with and into the Company, and the Company will survive the merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Open Text (the "Merger").  The
total cash consideration upon the closing of the Merger will be
approximately $251.2 million.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Merger, the Company, its
directors, Open Text and Merger Sub were named as defendants in a
putative class action complaint, captioned Hull v. Kim D. Cooke,
et al., Civil Action No. 12-A-04020-3, which was filed on May 7,
2012, and a putative class action complaint, captioned Biggs v.
Thomas J. Stallings, et al., Civil Action No. 12-A-04328-7, which
was filed on May 15, 2012, both of which were filed in the
Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  The actions,
brought on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of the
Company, generally allege that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders in
connection with the proposed acquisition by, among other things,
failing to maximize stockholder value, failing to disclose all
material information concerning the Merger and failing to act in
the best interests of the Company's stockholders.  The complaints
further allege that the Company, Open Text and Merger Sub aided
and abetted the purported breaches by the Company's directors.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive and other equitable relief,
including enjoining the Company from consummating the Merger, and
damages, in addition to fees and costs.  On May 25, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the two actions and
appoint both plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs.

In addition, the Company, its directors and Merger Sub were named
as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned
Gross v. EasyLink Services International Corp., et al., Case No.
7505, which was filed on May 8, 2012, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  The Gross action asserted allegations
similar to those asserted in the Georgia actions.  On May 16,
2012, the plaintiff in the Gross action filed a request for
voluntary dismissal of that case.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend these matters.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Continues to Face MERS-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp. continues to face class action lawsuits
filed against lenders and servicers that have held mortgages
through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS),
according to the Company's May 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company and other lenders and servicers
that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following
class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper
mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay
recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1)
Christian County Clerk, et al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage
Company filed in May 2011 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kentucky; (2) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P.
Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v.
MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et
al. filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga
County, Ohio and later removed to federal court; (3) State of
Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth County Attorney
v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services,
Inc., et aI. , filed in March 2012 in the Iowa District Court for
Plymouth County and later removed to federal court; (4) State of
Ohio, ex. rel. Jessica Little, Prosecuting Attorney General of
Brown County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in October 2011 in the
court of Common Pleas for Brown County, Ohio and later removed to
federal court; and (5) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick,
County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP,
Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al.
filed in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky.  In these class action lawsuits, the
plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the courts
compelling the defendants to record all assignments, restitution,
compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to contest all such claims vigorously.


FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP: May Face Class Action Over School Bus Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
TheIndyChannel reports that parents of students in the Franklin
Township School Corp. could soon receive letters asking them to
join a class-action lawsuit regarding school bus fees.

Marion County Superior Court Judge Theodore Sosin has allowed
parent Lora Hoagland's lawsuit to move forward as an official
class-action, RTV6's Kara Kenney reported.

During the 2011-2012 school year, the school system partnered with
the Central Indiana Education Service Center to charge families
for transportation.

Ms. Hoagland and her attorneys at Frazier Law Firm argue that the
fees were illegal and that parents should be reimbursed the money
they spent in fees.

Ms. Hoagland's attorneys also argue that parents who chose not to
pay the fee incurred unnecessary fuel costs by driving their
children to school, as well as wear and tear on their vehicles.

The judge ordered Franklin Township to provide a list of names and
addresses of all parents of children enrolled in the district,
specifying which of them partnered with CIESC.

The classes will be divided into two groups -- parents who paid
bus fees and parents who did not pay bus fees.


INDIANA: Judge Upholds Sex Offenders' Facebook Ban
--------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has upheld an
Indiana law banning registered sex offenders from accessing
Facebook and other social networking sites used by children.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt said in an order on June 22 that the
state has a strong interest in protecting children, and that the
rest of the Internet remains open to those who have been
convicted.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-
action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child
exploitation, along with other sex offenders who are restricted by
the ban even though they are no longer on probation.

Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana.

ACLU legal director Ken Falk says he's disappointed by Judge
Pratt's ruling and is considering an appeal.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Monthly Subscription Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend
a purported class action lawsuit relating to subscription plans
for a fixed monthly payment, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In July 2010, a claim and application for its certification as a
class action was filed in the District Court for the Central
District against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
("Bezeq"), alleging that Bezeq deceives its customers by offering
them subscription plans for a fixed monthly payment that result in
the subscribers purchasing packages of air-time that they do not
fully use.  The plaintiff is seeking restitution of the difference
between the amount paid by the customers for the subscription plan
and the amount that they should have paid, which the plaintiff
estimates to be tens of millions of shekels.  The plaintiff is
also claiming compensation of NIS1,500 per customer for alleged
invasion of privacy.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Support Call Center Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend
a class action lawsuit arising from amounts charged to customers
when they support call centers, according to the Company's April
30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On January 24, 2010, a claim was filed with the District Court for
the Central District, together with a motion to certify it as a
class action, against Bezeq International Ltd. and four other
communication licensees.  The plaintiffs request reimbursement of
all the amounts the consumers were charged when they called a
support call center and were required to pay for the call to the
cellular operator and/or any other entity, and estimated the total
amount of the claim against Bezeq International at NIS105 million.
Similar lawsuits were also filed against Bezeq (in the amount of
NIS23 million) and against DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd. (in
the amount of NIS4 million).


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Faces Suit Over High Speed Internet Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is accused of
misrepresenting its high speed Internet service, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On March 2012, a claim was filed against Pelephone Communications
Ltd. with the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel, together with a
motion to certify the claim as a class action.  According to the
plaintiffs, who allege that they are Pelephone's customers,
Pelephone misrepresented that it provides high speed Internet,
when tests conducted by the plaintiffs allegedly show that the
surfing speed is lower than stated by Pelephone and that the
actual download speed is 2 MBPS and the actual upload speed is 1
MBPS, on average.  The remedies sought in the claim are an
injunction preventing Pelephone from continuing to make the
alleged misrepresentations and seeking monetary relief in the
aggregate amount of NIS242 million as a compensation for the
damages allegedly suffered by Pelephone subscribers that are
described in the claim.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Settled SMS Messages-Related Suit in Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary settled in
September 2011 a purported class action lawsuit alleging it saves
SMS messages sent through its network on its systems, according to
the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In August 2009, a claim was filed with the District Court for the
Central District together with an application for its
certification as a class action, alleging that Pelephone
Communications Ltd. saves SMS messages sent through the Pelephone
network on its systems.  In September 2011, the Court approved a
compromise reached by the parties, according to which Pelephone
will supply 4 million SMS units to be used by charitable
associations and paid lawyers' fees and insignificant owners'
expenses.


INTERNET GOLD: Wage Refund Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in April
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary was dismissed in April 2012, according to
the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In October 2011, a former employee of Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. ("Bezeq") filed a claim against
Bezeq with the Regional Labor Court in Tel Aviv, Israel.  The main
purpose of the claim was a request to refund wage differences that
allegedly resulted from a failure to include on-call fees and
premiums in the hourly rate when calculating overtime and the
redemption of vacation days.  The claimant applied for
certification of the action as a class action in the amount of
NIS150 million in the name of certain of Bezeq's employees and
pensioners.  The claim was dismissed on April 29, 2012, pursuant
to the claimant's request.


INTERNET GOLD: Withdrawal of Inappropriate Payments Claim Allowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court allowed a plaintiff to withdraw her class action claim
against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In April 2011, the District Court for the Central District in
Israel accepted an agreed application for abandonment that was
filed by the parties, and allowed the applicant to withdraw her
motion to approve the claim as a class action against DBS
Satellite Service (1998) Ltd. in connection with the allegation
that DBS was in fundamental breach of the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Law due to its alleged failure to inform its
customers of the end of the commitment period and the alleged
collection of inappropriate payments at the end of the commitment
period.


INTERNET GOLD: Court Approved Withdrawal of Privacy Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of a purported class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was approved in
April 2012, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 23, 2012, the Haifa District Court, in Israel, approved
the withdrawal of a claim and motion to certify the claim as a
class action, which was filed against Pelephone Communications
Ltd. in November 2011.  The claim, which alleged damages of
approximately NIS285 million, contended that Pelephone's service
centers were breaching their customers' rights to privacy by
unlawfully recording their conversations without their knowledge.


ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Court Approved Suit Settlement in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court approved in March 2012 Ituran Location and
Control Ltd.'s settlement of a purported class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On March 21, 2011, the Company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, Israel, by one plaintiff who is a
subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was
declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices
Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and
discriminated between its customers.  The plaintiff claims that
the alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging
higher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged by
insurance company requirements to install location and recovery
systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription fees that
are charged from customers who are not required by insurance
companies to install location and recovery systems in their
vehicles.

On March 5, 2012, the court approved a settlement without
admission reached with the plaintiff, for a payment of NIS5,000 to
the plaintiff and NIS25,000 as reimbursement of the plaintiff's
legal fees and dismissal of the lawsuit as a class action.


ITURAN LOCATION: Still Defends TPCA-Violation Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2005, a class action was filed against a subsidiary of
Ituran Location and Control Ltd., Ituran Florida Corporation, in
the First Judicial District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit claims that Ituran Florida sent fax advertisements to
the named plaintiff and the other members of the class allegedly
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Ituran Florida filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that
such claims should not be heard as part of a class action. Such
motion was denied by the court, the precertification discovery
process was completed and a certification hearing is yet to be
scheduled.  The plaintiff agreed to limit the class action to
Pennsylvania actions only.  If the plaintiffs prevail the Company
estimates that the reasonably possible risk of loss to the
subsidiary, pursuant to the provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act is within the maximum range of $500,000 to $750,000
for all class plaintiffs, plus punitive damages and expenses.
However, based upon rulings by the Court in Philadelphia in
another matter, the Company believes that the class action will be
certified but that it is probable that a significant portion of
the individual class members will unlikely qualify for inclusion
in a class or be able to satisfy the burden of proof necessary for
compensation.  Even if the plaintiffs prevail, the Company
believes that the resolution of this claim will not have a
material effect on its revenues, operations or liquidity

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


J.CREW GROUP: Acquisition-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuits arising from J.Crew Group, Inc.'s
acquisition by Chinos Holdings, Inc., were voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiffs, according to the Company's May 30, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

J.Crew Group, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries (the
"Company" or "Group") was acquired (the "Acquisition") on
March 7, 2011 through a merger with Chinos Acquisition Corporation
("Merger Sub"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chinos Holdings, Inc.
(the "Parent").  The Parent was formed by investment funds
affiliated with TPG Capital, L.P. (together with such investment
funds "TPG") and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. ("LGP" and
together with TPG, the "Sponsors").  Subsequent to the
Acquisition, Group became an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent, which is owned by affiliates of the Sponsors, co-investors
and members of management.  Prior to March 7, 2011, the Company
operated as a public company with its common stock traded on the
New York Stock Exchange.

Between November 24, 2010, and December 16, 2010, seven purported
class action complaints concerning the Acquisition were filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "New York
Actions") against some or all of the following: the Company,
certain officers of the Company, members of the Company's Board of
Directors, Parent, the Company, TPG Capital, L.P., TPG Fund VI and
LGP.  The plaintiffs in each of these complaints alleged, among
other things, (1) that certain officers of the Company and members
of the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public stockholders by authorizing the Acquisition for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
and (2) that the Company, TPG Capital, L.P. and LGP aided and
abetted the other defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The purported class action complaints sought, among other things,
an order enjoining the consummation of the Acquisition, an order
rescinding the Acquisition to the extent it was consummated and an
award of compensatory damages.

On April 2, 2012, the plaintiffs in the New York Actions
voluntarily dismissed those actions.  Neither the plaintiffs in
the New York Actions nor their attorneys received any
consideration in exchange for the dismissal of the New York
Actions.

On December 1, 2010 and December 14, 2010, two purported class
action complaints concerning the Acquisition were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Federal Actions").  The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions
assert claims that are largely duplicative of the claims asserted
in the New York Actions, but also allege that the defendants
violated multiple federal securities statutes in connection with
the filing of the Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
relating to the Acquisition.  On March 6, 2012, the plaintiffs in
the Federal Actions voluntarily dismissed those actions.  Neither
the plaintiffs in the Federal Actions nor their attorneys received
any consideration in exchange for the dismissal of the Federal
Actions.


JA SOLAR: Paid $4.5-Mil. in 2011 to Settle Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. has paid total amount of $4.5 million
with respect to its settlement of securities class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2008, the Company was named as defendant in two
putative securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Ellenburg v.
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 08 CV 10475
(filed on December 3, 2008) and Zhang v. JA Solar Holdings Co.,
Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 08 CV 11366 (filed on December 31,
2008).  The complaints in the two actions, which are substantially
identical, also name as defendants Mr. Huaijin Yang, the Company's
former chief executive officer, and Mr. Daniel Lui, the Company's
former chief financial officer and chief strategy officer, and
allege that the defendants committed securities fraud in violation
of Section 10(b) of the United States Securities and Exchange Act.
The Court consolidated the two cases in April 2009.  In February
2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle
these securities class action lawsuits.  Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, a sum of US$4,500,000 (less any award of
attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the class that may be
approved by the Court) will be made available to shareholders who
may qualify for a distribution under the settlement.  As part of
the settlement, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the action and
drop all claims against the Company and the individual defendants.
The Court granted final approval of the settlement terms in June
2011.  The Company paid total settlement amount of RMB29,808,000
(US$4,500,000) in the year ended December 31, 2011.


JOS. A. BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Perpetual Sale Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit in New
Jersey alleging its merchandise is perpetually on sale at a price
that is the same as regularly offered, according to the Company's
May 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On April 5, 2012, James Waldron and Matthew Villani, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a
Class Action Complaint against the Company in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case 2:33-av-00001)
alleging, among other things, that the Company's merchandise is
perpetually on sale and the sale price is actually the price at
which the merchandise is regularly offered.  As a result, the
Complaint alleges, the Company's advertising practices violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and constitute unjust enrichment.
The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case
as a national (or New Jersey only) class action, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, disgorgement of profits, monetary
damages (including treble damages), restitution, costs and
attorneys' fees, statutory pre-judgment interest and other legal
and equitable relief.

The Company says it intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


JOS. A. BANK: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is facing a wage and hour class
action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's May 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On March 16, 2012, Neil Holmes, a former employee of the Company,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed
a Complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 112CV220780, alleging
various violations of California wage and labor laws.  The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, injunctive relief, monetary damages, penalties,
restitution, other equitable relief, interest, attorney's fees and
costs.

The Company says it intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Court Remands Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded to the
district court the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
filed against K-V Pharmaceutical Company, according to the
Company's June 14, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

On December 2, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Mas filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Mas v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  On
January 9, 2009, plaintiff Herman Unvericht filed a complaint
against the Company also in the Eastern District of Missouri,
Unvericht v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  On January 21, 2009,
plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System filed a complaint
against the Company, again in the Eastern District of Missouri,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  The
operative complaints in these three cases purport to state claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a
putative class of stock purchasers.  On April 15, 2009, the
Unvericht and Norfolk County cases were consolidated into the Mas
case.  The amended complaint for the consolidated action, styled
Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., was filed on
May 22, 2009.  Defendants, including the Company and certain of
its directors and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 27, 2009.  The court granted the motion to dismiss the
Company and all individual defendants in February 2010.  On March
18, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the order
of dismissal and to amend their complaint, and also filed a notice
of appeal.  On October 20, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for relief from the order of dismissal and to amend
pleadings.  On November 1, 2010, plaintiffs' filed a notice of
appeal.  On September 21, 2011, an appeal was argued before the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on the matter.

On June 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded the
action to the District Court for further proceedings.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals affirmed that plaintiffs did
not adequately plead the Company made false or misleading
statements about earnings as they relate to the manufacturer of
Metoprolol and that the scheme liability claims alleged against
certain individual defendants should be dismissed.  The Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the remainder of the action holding
that plaintiffs had adequately plead the Company's statements
regarding the Company's compliance with FDA regulations and cGMP
were false or misleading.  The Court also directed the District
Court to grant plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend a consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in Missouri, according to the
Company's June 14, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

On October 19, 2011, plaintiff Frank Julianello filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011.  The complaint
alleges class members were damaged by paying artificially inflated
stock prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading
statements regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.

On October 31, 2011, plaintiff Ramakrishna Mukku filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011.  The complaint
alleges class members were damaged by paying artificially inflated
stock prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading
statements regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.
On November 2, 2011, plaintiff Hoichi Cheong filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company, who purchased or otherwise acquired K-V
securities between
February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges class members were
damaged by purchasing artificially inflated stock prices due to
the Company's purportedly misleading statements regarding
Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.

On March 8, 2012, the Julianello, Mukku and Cheong cases were
consolidated and the consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V
Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 11CV1816
AGF.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends 12 Product Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company is defending 12 product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's June 14, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012.

The Company and/or its subsidiary, ETHEX Corporation, are named
defendants in at least 12 pending product liability or other
lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by
the Company in late 2008 and early 2009.  The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of
purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and
2008.  The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in
various jurisdictions.  Three of the 12 pending lawsuits have
settled but have not yet been dismissed.  Of the remaining nine
pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, six
plaintiffs allege wrongful death, and the remaining lawsuits
allege non-fatal physical injuries.  Plaintiffs' allegations of
liability are based on various theories of recovery, including,
but not limited to strict liability, negligence, various breaches
of warranty, misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or
statutory claims.  Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and
punitive damages.  Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions
seeking economic damages with respect to recalled products, one of
the lawsuits has four unrelated plaintiffs, and the remaining
lawsuits are either individual lawsuits or have two plaintiffs.
The Company possesses third party product liability insurance,
which the Company believes is applicable to many of the pending
lawsuits and claims.

One of these putative class actions, styled Polk v. KV
Pharmaceutical Company, et al., seeks economic damages with
respect to recalled metoprolol succinate product.  During January
2011, the decision of the U.S. District Court dismissing the case
in favor of the Company was reversed on appeal.  The Company
requested reconsideration by the appellate court, which was denied
in March 2011, and the Company filed a motion for appellate review
en banc, which was denied by the court on
May 12, 2011.  The case was returned to the district court for
further proceedings.  The district court granted the Company's
second motion to dismiss on December 15, 2011.  The plaintiff has
appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The other putative class action, styled Herndon v. KV
Pharmaceutical Company, et al., is pending in state court in
Missouri.  Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was heard by
the court on August 16, 2011.  The court issued an order denying
class certification on December 15, 2011.  In addition to the 12
pending lawsuits, there is one pending pre-litigation claim that
may or may not eventually result in a lawsuit.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Settlement of Suit Over 401(k) Plan Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company's settlement of a class action lawsuit
in Missouri over its 401(k) plan was approved in May 2012,
according to the Company's June 14, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2012.

On February 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative
class-action complaint against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Crocker v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al ., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ.  The Crocker
case was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in
the Eastern District of Missouri ( Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical
Co., et al ., No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, on February 9, 2009, and
Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al ., No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, on
February 24, 2009).  The two later cases were consolidated into
Crocker so that only a single action existed thereafter, and the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009
("Complaint").  The Complaint purported to state claims against
the Company and certain current and former employees for alleged
breach of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan.  Defendants, including the Company and certain of its
directors and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 25, 2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on
October 19, 2009.  The court granted the motion to dismiss filed
by the Company and all individual defendants on March 24, 2010.  A
motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended
consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010.  The Company,
on May 17, 2010, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's
motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint.  On October 20, 2010, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to
amend the complaint.  Plaintiffs requested mediation and the
Company agreed to this request.  On February 15, 2011, during such
mediation, this litigation was settled by an agreement in
principle of the parties for an amount equal to $3.0, payable in
full from the Company's insurance coverage.  The court approved
the settlement on May 4, 2012.


KAO USA: Accused of Misrepresenting Jergens Moisturizer Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
J'lyshae Burns, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kao U.S.A., Inc., an Ohio corporation, Case
No. 3:12-cv-03261 (N.D. Calif., June 22, 2012) alleges that KAO
makes erroneous claims in the packaging, labeling, marketing,
advertising and promotion for its product called Jergens(R) Skin
Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer.

KAO falsely asserts that the Product is "clinically proven to
reduce the appearance of cellulite," and that it will tighten a
user's skin, and produce improved resiliency, elasticity, and
firmness, Ms. Burns contends.  She argues that these consistent
and uniform claims are erroneous, false, and misleading to a
reasonable consumer because the Product is not "clinically proven
to reduce the appearance of cellulite."

Ms. Burns is a resident of the city of Oakland, County of Alameda,
California.  She purchased the Product in March 2012 for $6 from a
Walmart store in Oakland.

KAO is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.
KAO manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and sells
Jergens(R) Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@kwrlawoffice.com


LG DISPLAY: Antitrust Suits Still Pending in U.S. and Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. continues to defend antitrust class action
lawsuits in the United States of America and Canada, the Company
disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In December 2006, LG Display received notices of investigation by
the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission, the Korea
Fair Trade Commission and the Japan Fair Trade Commission with
respect to possible anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD
industry.  LG Display subsequently received similar notices from
the Competition Bureau of Canada, the Secretariat of Economic Law
of Brazil, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission and the Federal
Competition Commission of Mexico.

In November 2008, LG Display executed an agreement with the U.S.
Department of Justice whereby LG Display and LG Display America
pleaded guilty to a Sherman Antitrust Act violation and agreed to
pay a single total fine of US$400 million.  In December 2008, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
accepted the terms of the plea agreement and entered a judgment
against LG Display and LG Display America Inc. and ordered the
payment of US$400 million.  The agreement resolved all federal
criminal charges against LG Display and LG Display America in the
United States in connection with this matter, provided that LG
Display continues to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice
in connection with the ongoing proceedings.

In December 2010, the European Commission issued a decision
finding that LG Display engaged in anti-competitive activities in
the TFT-LCD industry in violation of European Union competition
laws, and imposed a fine of EUR215 million.  In February 2011, LG
Display filed with the European Union General Court an application
for partial annulment and reduction of the fine imposed by the
European Commission.  As of April 29, 2012, the European Union
General Court has not ruled on LG Display's application.  In
November 2011, LG Display received a request for information from
the European Commission relating to certain alleged anti-
competitive activities in the TFT-LCD industry and has responded
to the request.

In November 2009, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission terminated its
investigation without any finding of violations or levying of
fines.  Also, in February 2012, the Competition Bureau of Canada
terminated its investigation without any finding of violations or
levying of fines.  As of April 29, 2012, no decision has been
issued by the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and the Company
believes the statutory time period by which the Commission was
required to have issued a decision has already lapsed.  As of
April 29, 2012, investigations by the Federal Competition
Commission of Mexico and the Secretariat of Economic Law of Brazil
are ongoing.

In December 2011, the Korea Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine
of KRW31.4 billion after finding that LG Display and certain of
its subsidiaries engaged in anti-competitive activities in
violation of Korean fair trade laws.  In December 2011, LG Display
filed an appeal of the decision with the Seoul High Court.  As of
April 29, 2012, the Seoul High Court has not ruled on LG Display's
appeal.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display, LG Display America and other TFT-LCD panel
manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging violation
of respective antitrust laws and related laws.  In a series of
decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in the
United States were transferred to the Northern District of
California for pretrial proceedings ("MDL Proceedings").  In March
2010, the federal district court granted the class certification
motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and granted in
part and denied in part the class certification motion filed by
the direct purchaser plaintiffs.  In January 2011, 78 entities
(including groups of affiliated entities) submitted requests for
exclusion from the direct purchaser class.  The time period for
submitting requests for exclusion from the indirect purchaser
class expired on April 13, 2012.  In addition, since 2010, the
attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints
against LG Display, alleging similar antitrust violations as
alleged in the MDL Proceedings.

In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct
purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in
December 2011.  In late April 2012, LG Display reached a
settlement-in-principle with the indirect purchaser class
plaintiffs and with the state attorneys general of Arkansas,
California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia
and Wisconsin, which is subject to court approval and, in the case
of the state attorneys general actions, subject to approval by
their respective state governments.  Once the settlement-in-
principle is approved, only the Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina and Washington attorneys general actions
will remain pending.  While the Oklahoma and Oregon attorneys
general actions are pending in the MDL Proceedings, the Illinois
and Washington attorneys general actions are pending in their
respective state courts, and the Mississippi and South Carolina
attorneys general actions are pending in federal courts in their
respective districts.

In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS
Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and
its affiliates, Motorola, Inc., and Electrograph Technologies
Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate claims in the United
States, and all of the actions were subsequently consolidated into
the MDL Proceedings.  In November 2010, ATS Claim, LLC dismissed
its action as to LG Display pursuant to a settlement agreement.
In addition, in 2010, TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc.
and its affiliates, Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart
Corp., Old Comp Inc., Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg
Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc., Sony
Computer Entertainment America LLC, SB Liquidation Trust and the
trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed
claims in the United States.  In addition, in 2011, the AASI
Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American Semiconductor
Inc., Compucom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America,
Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son
Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC
Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of
Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC,T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.,
Tech Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc. filed
similar claims in the United States.  In 2012, ViewSonic Corp.,
NECO Alliance LLC and Rockwell Automation LLC filed similar
claims.  To the extent these claims were not filed in the MDL
Proceedings, they have been transferred or are expected to be
transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial proceedings.

In Canada, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
class action complaints filed by the direct and indirect
purchasers in May 2011.  LG Display is pursuing an appeal of the
decision as well as defending the on-going class actions in Quebec
and British Columbia.

In each of these ongoing matters, the Company says it is
continually evaluating the merits of the respective claims and
vigorously defending itself.  Irrespective of the validity or the
successful assertion of the claims, the Company may incur
significant costs with respect to litigating or settling any or
all of the asserted claims.  While the Company continues to
vigorously defend the various proceedings, it is possible that one
or more proceedings may result in an unfavorable outcome.  The
Company has recognized provisions in 2011 with respect to those
contingencies in which its management has concluded that the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of
loss is reasonably estimable.  However, actual liability may be
materially different from that estimated as of December 31, 2011,
and may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating
results or financial condition.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and specifications
primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop
monitors and other applications.  It also supplies high-definition
television panels.  The Company manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld
application products, such as mobile phones and medium and large-
size panels for industrial and other applications, such as
entertainment systems, portable navigation devices, e-paper,
digital photo displays and medical diagnostic equipment.


LHC GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its June 14, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it is facing a
securities class action lawsuit in Louisiana.

On June 13, 2012, LHC Group, Inc. (the "Company") became aware of
a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana against the Company and one
of its executive officers, City of Omaha Police and Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc. et al., United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Case Number
6:12-CV-01609-RFD-CMH.  The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages for the putative class of purchasers of
Company common stock during the period from July 30, 2008, through
October 26, 2011.  The Company believes these claims are without
merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Logitech International S.A. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's May
30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Logitech International S.A. and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares between
October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011.  The complaint relates to
Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011, that its results for
fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  The action was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on
July 28, 2011.  The California Court appointed a lead plaintiff on
October 27, 2011.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
January 9, 2012, which expanded the alleged class period to
between October 28, 2010, and September 22, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Berkowitz, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 25 said it would not hear an appeal from insurer
Louisiana Citizens on a class-action lawsuit that followed
Hurricane Katrina, handing another victory to plaintiffs who are
already owed more than $105 million.

A local court in 2009 ordered Louisiana Citizens, the state's
insurer of last resort, to pay penalties to policyholders because
it took too long to start adjusting more than 18,500 claims after
the devastating hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

A state appellate court overturned the verdict, but the Louisiana
Supreme Court reinstated it last December. On Monday the nation's
highest court denied Citizens' petition for the court to consider
its case, which an attorney for the plaintiffs said effectively
ended the insurer's appeals.

"What this tells us is that there was no mistake by the Louisiana
Supreme Court and there was no federal question," said the
attorney, Wiley Beevers of the Louisiana law firm Beevers &
Beevers.

Louisiana Citizens had sought to appeal on the grounds it was
denied due process, since class members had not been required to
prove individually whether they were entitled to the maximum civil
penalty of $5,000 each, and Citizens had not had the chance to
defend against each claim.

Its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed by Theodore
Olsen, the former solicitor general in the Bush administration.

With the petition rejected, Mr. Beevers said he could move ahead
with an effort to seize the insurer's bank account, a process that
he said was "well down the road."

The chief executive of Louisiana Citizens told Reuters the bank
account seizure was not imminent because the insurer was still
seeking a hearing before the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We still have an issue in 1st Circuit court . . . with respect to
our status as a political instrumentality," Dick Robertson said in
a phone interview. Louisiana Citizens' position is that it is not
subject to its accounts being seized because of that political
status.

Mr. Robertson added that he expects that question to eventually go
to the state's supreme court, suggesting any resolution is a fair
way off.

Either way, Louisiana Citizens has adequate cash on hand to pay
the verdict if it needs to, Mr. Robertson said.  But if the state
were subsequently hit by a major storm, "it would be highly
likely" it would need to levy an assessment to cover claims, he
said.

Citizens has the ability to make both regular and emergency
assessments to cover shortfalls.  Regular assessments are levied
against insurers, who can then surcharge policyholders to cover
their costs. Emergency assessments are mandatory against all
policyholders in the state and are used to service bonds issued to
cover funding gaps.

The insurer previously issued nearly $1 billion in bonds to cover
its post-Katrina deficit, for which it has been charging emergency
assessments since 2007.

State insurers of last resort like Louisiana Citizens exist to
offer coverage to people who cannot obtain it through regular
insurance markets, usually because the risk is too high.  The
biggest ones are in markets with high exposure to hurricanes and
earthquakes, like Louisiana and California.


MERCK & CO: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on June 22 preliminarily allowed Merck & Co. Inc. to
pay $10.4 million to exit a class action filed by employees who
say their retirement savings were hurt by the company's
misrepresentations about the effectiveness of its cholesterol drug
Vytorin.

U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh gave preliminary approval
of the settlement, ending a four-year battle in the consolidated
class action claiming the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by artificially inflating its stock.


MERCK & CO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Vaccine Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that Merck and Co. Inc. was
hit with a putative antitrust class action in Pennsylvania federal
court on June 22 by an Alabama medical provider alleging the
pharmaceutical company lied about the efficacy rate of its mumps
inoculation in an effort to keep competitors from bringing their
own versions of the vaccine to market.

Chatom Primary Care PC accuses Merck of concealing test results
and falsifying studies to artificially maintain the vaccine's
claimed 95 percent efficacy rate and intimidate rivals from
producing their own version.


METLIFE INSURANCE: Defends Suits Over Improper Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is defending class action
lawsuits alleging improper sales practices, according to the
Company's May 31, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Over the past several years, the Company has faced claims,
including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or
sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual
funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek
substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend
against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate
provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements
for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales
practices matters.


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Narrows Claims in Phone Tracking Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Leonhardt, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington
federal judge on June 22 nixed state consumer protection and
privacy claims brought by a proposed class of customers alleging
Microsoft Corp.'s software illegally tracked their locations, but
allowed the suit to go forward on federal Stored Communications
Act claims.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour denied Microsoft's bid to
dismiss consumers' claims that the software giant violated the
federal Stored Communications Act, but tossed state consumer
protection and privacy claims, federal wiretap claims and unjust
enrichment allegations.


MINDRAY MEDICAL: Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed in December
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed shareholder class action lawsuit against Mindray
Medical International Limited was dismissed in December 2011,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 20, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing a
proposed shareholder class action lawsuit filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors on July 21,
2011.  The complaint had alleged that between January 11, 2010,
and August 9, 2010, the Company made a series of materially false
and misleading statements or omissions about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.


NISSAN MOTOR: Wants Transmission Defect Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan Motor
Co. Ltd. urged a California federal judge on June 25 to dismiss it
from a putative class action alleging the Japanese automaker knew
of transmission defects in its Altima, Maxima and Quest models,
arguing its U.S. sales and marketing were handled independently by
its North American subsidiary.

If Nissan Motor Co. is dismissed by U.S. District Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald, the subsidiary Nissan North America Inc. would remain
as the sole defendant and could shield the automaker from certain
document requests.


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the
"Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against Northern Trust Corporation
and three of its present or former officers, including the present
and former Chief Executive Officers of the Company, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007, to October 20, 2009.  The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.  At this stage of the lawsuit, it is not
possible for management to assess the probability of a material
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial holding company that
provides asset servicing, fund administration, asset management,
fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions,
families and individuals worldwide.  The Corporation conducts
business through various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (Bank).  The Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


NORTHERN TRUST: Investigation on Lending Program Ended in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012, that the SEC's investigation
into the Company's securities lending program has been completed
and that the SEC does not intend to recommend any enforcement
action by the Commission.

A number of participants in the Company's securities lending
program, which is associated with the Company's asset servicing
business, have commenced either individual lawsuits or putative
class actions in which they claim, among other things, that the
Company failed to exercise prudence in the investment management
of the collateral received from the borrowers of the securities,
resulting in losses that they seek to recover.  The cases assert
various contractual, statutory and common law claims, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty under common law and under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  Based on the
Company's review of these matters, it believes it operated its
securities lending program prudently and appropriately.  At this
stage of these proceedings, however, it is not possible for
management to assess the probability of a material adverse outcome
or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.  The
Company also cooperated fully with a U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC or the Commission) investigation related to the
Company's securities lending program.  In April 2012, the SEC
Staff advised the Company that the investigation has been
completed and that they do not intend to recommend any enforcement
action by the Commission.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial holding company that
provides asset servicing, fund administration, asset management,
fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions,
families and individuals worldwide.  The Corporation conducts
business through various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (Bank).  The Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its June 14, 2012, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that a
Massachusetts court dismissed the securities class action lawsuit
filed by Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald.

                       Novelos' Statement

Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. announced that on June 11, 2012, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton dismissed with prejudice a second amended
complaint in a putative federal securities fraud class action
brought in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts originally in March 2010 entitled Boris Urman and
Ramona McDonald v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. and Harry S. Palmin
(Civil Action No. 10-10394-NMG).  The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial
before the United States Food and Drug Administration of Novelos'
oxidized glutathione compound, NOV-002, in application to non-
small cell lung cancer.  On February 24, 2010, Novelos announced
that the Phase 3 trial had concluded unsuccessfully, and the price
per share of Novelos' common stock dropped by approximately 80%
from its close on the prior day.  A first amended complaint had
been dismissed without prejudice by Judge Gorton on June 23, 2011.
The second amended complaint was filed on August 5, 2011.  In
dismissing the second amended complaint, Judge Gorton concluded
that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to permit an
inference of scienter and failed to allege loss causation
adequately.  Novelos and Mr. Palmin were defended by Foley Hoag
LLP.


NSP-MINNESOTA: Appeal from "Comer" Class Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs took an appeal from the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit involving Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota
corporation, and its parent, Xcel Energy Inc., according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint
alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of
Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly
sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on
public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the
defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.,
Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service Company of
Colorado, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
and NSP-Minnesota.  The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is
unknown.  The defendants, including Xcel, believe this lawsuit is
without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On March
20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for
dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

While Xcel believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the
nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could
potentially have a material impact on NSP-Minnesota's consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.  No
accrual has been recorded for this matter.


NSP-WISCONSIN: Comer's Appeal from Class Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit involving
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and its
parent, Xcel Energy Inc., is pending, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint
alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of
Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly
sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on
public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the
defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.,
Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service Company of
Colorado, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.  The
amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The
defendants, including Xcel, believe this lawsuit is without merit
and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On March 20, 2012, the
U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal.  In April
2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

While Xcel believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the
nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could
potentially have a material impact on NSP-Minnesota's consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.  No
accrual has been recorded for this matter.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is facing a securities class
action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's
May 31, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 30, 2012, a class action complaint (the "Complaint") was
received by Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company").
The Complaint was filed by Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (the "Plaintiff") against the Company,
Orrstown Bank (the "Bank") and certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company and the Bank (collectively,
the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The Complaint alleges that the
Defendants violated certain provisions of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified
damages, including injunctive relief.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Lens Monopoly MDL Still Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. continues to defend a multidistrict
litigation involving its subsidiary in Florida, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

In 2010, Transitions Optical, Inc. ("TOI"), a consolidated
subsidiary of the Company, entered into a settlement agreement,
without admitting liability, with the Federal Trade Commission,
which had alleged that TOI violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act.  Following the announcement of the settlement with
the Federal Trade Commission, 30 private putative class cases were
filed against TOI, alleging that it has monopolized and/or
conspired to monopolize the market for photochromic lenses.  All
of the federal actions have been transferred and centralized in
the Middle District of Florida (the "MDL Action").  Amended
complaints in the MDL Action were filed in November and December
2010.  In late 2011, the court ruled on TOI's motion to dismiss
and allowed the plaintiffs to file new or further amended
complaints.  Plaintiffs in the MDL Action include Insight Equity
A.P. X, LP, d/b/a Vision-Ease Lens Worldwide, Inc., which has sued
on its own behalf, and putative classes of "direct purchasers,"
including laboratories and retailers (the "Lab/Retailer
Plaintiffs"), and "indirect purchasers," consisting of end-user
consumers.  Plaintiffs in the MDL Action generally allege that
TOI's exclusive dealing arrangements resulted in higher prices and
seek lost profits and damages determined by the price premium
attributable to wrongful exclusive deals.  The damages sought are
subject to trebling.  The Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs also allege that
TOI and certain affiliates of Essilor International SA conspired
with respect to the wrongful exclusive dealing arrangements.
Briefing with respect to class certification is expected to be
completed in late 2012.

TOI believes it has meritorious defenses and continues to defend
all of the actions vigorously.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Antitrust Suit Settlement Funds Distributed in 1Q
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that distribution of the funds in
its settlement of antitrust class action lawsuits occurred during
the first quarter 2012.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers
as defendants in purported antitrust class actions.  The
complaints alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of
sale of flat glass in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into
one federal court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa.  In the
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs sought a permanent
injunction enjoining the defendants from future violations of the
federal antitrust laws, unspecified compensatory damages,
including treble damages, and the recovery of their litigation
costs.  Many allegations in the complaints were similar to those
raised in proceedings by the European Commission in which fines
were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of
alleged antitrust violations.  PPG is not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe.  PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998.  A complaint containing allegations
substantially similar to the U.S. litigation and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by
the court was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass in Canada.
In the third quarter of 2010, the other defendants in these cases
agreed to settlements.  Although PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or
conduct on its part in the operation of its flat glass business
that violated any antitrust laws, in order to avoid the ongoing
expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and
uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury
trials, in the third quarter of 2010 PPG reached an agreement in
principle to resolve these flat glass antitrust matters for
approximately $6 million.  Final settlement agreements were
executed in the fourth quarter of 2010.  The court has approved
the settlements and distribution of the funds occurred during the
first quarter 2012.


PRIMO WATER: Class Action Plaintiffs File Additional Details
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Evans, writing for The Business Journal, reports that the
plaintiffs involved in a class-action suit accusing Primo Water of
misleading investors about the financial health of the company
have filed additional details of their complaint with the court,
according to the Winston-Salem Journal.

The suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina accuses the Winston-Salem-based beverage and
appliance firm of providing misleading information that caused
investors to buy Primo shares at inflated prices.  Shares of Primo
Water Corp. have fallen from a post-IPO high of $16.45 to close
Monday at $1.14.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs argue that Primo deliberately
overstated demand, did not disclose that it would fail to meet
estimated financial benchmarks, misled investors on the number of
stores carrying Primo products and inflated expectations for its
Flavorstation line of carbonated beverage appliances even though
it knew the products would be delayed.

Primo Chief Financial Officer Mark Castaneda told the Winston-
Salem Journal that "we believe the suit is without merit and we
will defend vigorously."

The suit seeks damages for investors who bought stock between the
IPO date of Nov. 4, 2010, and Aug. 10, 2011.  The suit also lists
four financial underwriters of the IPO including BB&T Capital
Markets as defendants.  A BB&T Corporation spokesperson declined
to comment to the Journal.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Comer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs took an appeal from the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit involving Public Service Company of Colorado and its
parent, Xcel Energy Inc., according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit, captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.,
against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in
U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint alleges
defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane
Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained
to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on public and
private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the defendants
named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., Southwestern Public
Service Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern
States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation and Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.  The amount of damages
claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants, including Xcel
Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On March 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted this motion for dismissal.  In April 2012,
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  While Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood
of loss is remote, given the nature of this case and any
surrounding uncertainty, it could potentially have a material
impact on PSCo's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial position.  No accrual has been recorded for this matter.


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Charges
--------------------------------------------------------
Ari Law, P.C., a business law firm in San Francisco, on June 26
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Regus
Management Group, LLC, Regus Business Centre LLC, and Regus plc,
claiming violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200,
17500 (false/misleading advertising), concealment of hidden
charges, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional
misrepresentation (fraud), by the commercial lease space provider
Regus.

The complaint, case number CGC-12-520600, alleges that Regus,
which claims to be the world's largest provider of flexible
workplaces, failed to adequately disclose hidden charges and
engaged in unfair business practices under California law.  The
complaint asks for, inter alia, that Regus disgorge or return all
profits to its clients that were gained through unfair practices
or charges that were not adequately disclosed by Regus to its
clients.

Persons who have information relevant to Regus' business practices
may contact attorney Bo Zeng at 415-857-3487 or by e-mail at info
at arilaw.com.


SAKS INC: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Saks Incorporated continues to defend two class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to
the Company's May 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs
v. Saks Incorporated et al., filed a complaint, with which the
Company was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class and
collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
California Labor Code and that the Company failed to pay overtime,
provide itemized wage statements and provide meal and rest
periods.  On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  The plaintiffs seek to
proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under the
California statutes on behalf of individuals who have been
employed by Saks Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH as Selling and Service
Managers, Merchandise Team Managers, or Department Managers and
similar titles.

On February 8, 2012, the same plaintiffs' counsel from the Till
case filed a complaint, with which the Company was served on March
2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging essentially the same FLSA claim and related
claims under New York state law (Tate - Small et al v. Saks
Incorporated et al).

The Company believes that its managers at OFF 5TH have been
properly classified as exempt under both federal and state law and
intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.  It is not possible
to predict whether the courts will permit these actions to proceed
collectively or as a class.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may
arise from these matters.


SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL: Faces Overdraft Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Anderson, writing for CreditUnionTimes, reports that a San
Jose, Calif., attorney has slapped the $9.4 billion SchoolsFirst
Federal Credit Union, $6 billion Star One Credit Union and $1.3
billion Kern Schools Federal Credit Union with class action
lawsuits that allege overdraft shenanigans.

The court documents, filed June 21 in Northern California U.S.
District Court, contain the same language used in lawsuits against
big banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and others.

Attorney Fernando Chavez and his plaintiffs accuse the big
California credit unions of deceptive business practices that
involve "the systematic manipulation and re-ordering of electronic
debit transactions from the highest dollar amount to the lowest
dollar amount . . . to maximize the amount of overdraft fees
collected."

The suit not only alleges re-ordering, but also charges the credit
unions published inaccurate and unreliable account balance
information online, by phone and by ATM; delayed posting
transactions; charged exorbitant overdraft fees; failed to
disclose overdraft practices; and, engaged in deceptive
advertising campaigns regarding checking accounts.

Specific legal complaints include fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty,
and violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act and Professions
Code, among others.

Rick Heldebrant, president/CEO of Star One, told Credit Union
Times his institution does not reorder transactions, nor does it
order them largest transaction to smallest during processing.

Mr. Heldebrant said Star One defendants have not been served any
legal papers, but he looked the court documents up online after
hearing about it from the media.  He said the allegations in the
suit are false.

The 11 defendants in the Star One suit are all current members of
the Board of Directors, according to Star One's Web site.  Judge
Howard Lloyd has been assigned to the case.

Like Mr. Heldebrant, Kern Schools President/CEO Steve Renock says
he has not been served any papers, nor has he seen the complaint.
However, Mr. Renock said he "believes the allegations are not
correct at this time."

Mr. Renock would not say if Kern Schools reorders transactions to
maximize overdraft income, or in which order transactions are
processed.  He said he was advised by credit union attorneys to
not speak on the matter until the lawsuit has been reviewed, but
said "we treat all members fairly and believe all fees are
appropriate."

Kern School's 11 defendants are all listed on the credit union's
Web site as current board members.  Judge Grewal was also assigned
to the Kern Schools case.

According to an on-hold recording, SchoolsFirst was experiencing
high volumes of calls, and as a result, it was not possible to
reach anyone for comment at press time.

Defendants in the SchoolsFirst case include board members John
Didion, Lynn Hartline and Linda Salata, as well as President/CEO
Rudy Hanley.  Judge Paul Singh Grewal has been assigned to the
suit.

If the parties fail to reach an early settlement, case management
conferences on the cases are scheduled for late August and early
September, 2012.

The lawsuit comes as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
researching overdraft practices, and collecting information from
financial service providers and the public.

In 2011, class action lawsuit Closson v. Bank of America resulted
in a $410 million settlement.  According to the settlement
Web site, Bank of America was forced to pay up to $78 to customers
who could prove they had an account at BofA, had account
accessibility through a debit card, check card or another other
card used for debit purchases, and paid at least one insufficient
funds fee, overdraft fee, returned item fee, overlimit fee or
similar fee related to a debit card transaction between 2000 and
2007.


SERVPRO: Recalls 24T Notus Air Movers/Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 24,000 Notus air movers/blowers were voluntarily recalled by
Servpro in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The air mover/blower's internal electrical capacitor can fail and
overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Servpro has received four reports of overheating incidents with
the recalled air movers/blowers.  Three of the incidents resulted
in property damage, including a fire at a home in San Diego,
California, that caused $475,000 in damage.

This recall involves commercial air movers/blowers used to dry
flooring, walls and furniture in homes and other buildings.  The
air movers' green plastic housing measures about 18 inches high by
18 inches long by 18 inches deep.  The air movers have a 25-foot
yellow electrical cord.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12739.html

The recalled products were manufactured by EDIC, of Los Angeles,
California, in the United States of America, and sold to Servpro's
independently-owned franchises nationwide from April 2004 through
August 2010 for between $200 and $230.

Users should immediately stop using the recalled air
movers/blowers and contact Servpro for a free repair kit to be
installed by users.  Servpro is directly contacting franchises
that purchased the air movers.  For more information, contact
Carey Cooper at Servpro at (800) 543-5362 or e-mail the firm at
AirMoverRecall@Klinedinstlaw.com.  Franchisees can also visit the
firm's intranet for more information.


SOUTH WEST NOVA: Health Authority Sued for Patient Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for Herald News, reports that a Halifax law
firm has started a class action against a provincial health
authority after a worker accessed the private medical records of
hundreds of South Shore patients.

Alicia Hemeon and Willa Magee are the lead plaintiffs in the case
initiated by the Wagners law firm in Halifax.  The plaintiffs
filed their claim late last week in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

In their statement of claim, Ms. Hemeon and Ms. Magee say they are
longtime patients of centers run by the South West Nova district
health authority and have suffered "distress, humiliation and
anguish" after learning their private health records were
breached.

Ms. Hemeon and Ms. Magee welcome any other patients who have been
similarly notified their records were also breached to join the
lawsuit, the legal action said.

An investigation into the records breach, made public in mid-June,
shows 707 patients have been alerted their personal medical
information has been accessed.

The authority runs three hospitals in the district, including
Roseway, Digby General and Yarmouth Regional.

Ms. Hemeon and Ms. Magee allege the authority did not use "proper
protocols and procedures" at those facilities to ensure sensitive
medical information was not leaked, Ray Wagner, with the law firm,
said in a news release on June 25.

"This (action) serves a broader public purpose of great
importance; that is privacy," Mr. Wagner said in the release.

On June 15, the health authority posted an apology on its Web site
about the breach, saying the violation became known April 15.

A Roseway Hospital worker in Shelburne has since been fired for
accessing the records of more than 700 patients, who found out
about the problem June 11.

Authority spokesman Fraser Mooney said on June 25 the authority
hadn't yet been served with court papers.

Mr. Mooney said if that does happen, the authority would not be
able to comment because the case would then be before the courts.


SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Appeal Dismissal of "Comer" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled Comer vs. Xcel
Energy Inc. et al., which involves Southwestern Public Service
Company and its parent, Xcel Energy Inc., appealed from the
dismissal of the lawsuit, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.,
Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service Company of
Colorado, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.  The
amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The
defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is
without merit and have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On
March 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for
dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  While Xcel
Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the
nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could
potentially have a material impact on SPS' results of operations,
cash flows or financial position.  No accrual has been recorded
for this matter.


STRAYER EDUCATION: "Kinnett" Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff took an appeal from the dismissal of its class action
lawsuit filed in Florida, Strayer Education, Inc. disclosed in its
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other
legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of its
business.  On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action
styled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the
plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal.

While the outcome of any further legal proceeding cannot be
predicted with certainty, the Company does not expect these
matters to have a material effect on its financial condition or
results of operations.


TEREX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA and Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation is awaiting court decisions on its motions to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit and a lawsuit filed
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a
stockholder derivative lawsuit:

   * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
     the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     September 20, 2010, and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
     Litigation;

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
     securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the
     United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     November 18, 2010, and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local
     32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension
     Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.; and

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
     Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary
     duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was
     filed on April 12, 2010, in the United States District
     Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer,
     derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M.
     DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris
     Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike,
     Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
     Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and
     Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors.  The
complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company is unable
to estimate a loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.  The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are
without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives
will continue to vigorously defend against them.  The Company
believes that it has acted, and continue to act, in compliance
with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters.  Accordingly, on November 19, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit.  These
motions are currently pending before the court.  The plaintiff in
the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to
put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to
dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit.


THUNDER BAY CITY, ON: Watkins Law to File C$500MM Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leith Dunick, writing for tbnewswatch.com, reports that a local
law firm says it will either proceed with a flood-related class-
action lawsuit against City of Thunder Bay, or after a 60-day
notification period, include the Ministry of the Environment and
up the suit to C$500 million.

Lawyer Sandy Zaitzeff added on June 25 they may not be done,
indicating they may add another agency which operates under the
auspices of the MOE to the suit, which has yet to be certified in
court.

Mr. Zaitzeff, a lawyer in the Watkins Law Professional
Corporation, said with the notice of intent filed against the
province, they've officially put the MOE on notice.

"We will be seeking compensatory damages from the ministry for all
of the allegations contained in our issued statement of claim and
the specific allegations against the Ministry of the Environment
are simply that . . . they are the regulator, they are the
government.  They have full authority to make regulations, to
police the city, to inspect the city, to make sure the city is
following the environmental legislation that the province has
already put out.  That's the job of the regulator," Mr. Zaitzeff
said.

The C$500-million tab is quite generous, he added.

The Ministry of the Environment has unlimited resource and is
backed by the province, he said.  Mr. Zaitzeff estimated between
3,000 and 4,000 homes that were affected by the May 28 flood, with
an average sewer claim of C$50,000.  He said most affected
homeowners, with sewage and water soaking into the foundations,
are likely facing complete basement replacement.  Based on
discussions with two contractors and two engineers, that will cost
between C$80,000 and C$120,000 per home.

"That puts the damages at C$1.5 billion.  So to ask the province
for C$500 million to make this city whole is very conservative,"
Mr. Zaitzeff said.

He added they are looking into whether or not the federal
government should be included in the lawsuit.

"We may go against the feds, but we're only researching the feds.
There's another agency, whose title and name I'm not going to
disclose [Mon] day.  But the MOE is responsible as the watchdog of
that agency as well.  The MOE is really the policeman on the beat.
They failed to enforce what they knew they had to have out there.
They failed to tell the city to clean the ditches, add ditches,
look after your overall drainage plan, check the low-lying areas,
bring it up to date, bring it up to the year 2012 and let's get
going," he said.

Contacted on June 25 by Thunder Bay Television, an MOE
spokesperson had no comment.

Watkins, who was set to announce the details of the suit at a 4:00
p.m. news conference in Thunder Bay on June 25, said the province
knew about global warming ahead of the May 28 flood that
devastated parts of the city, but did nothing to combat the
problem.

"(Sandy) Zaitzeff, our lead counsel on the present issued class
action against the City of Thunder Bay, has informed me of the
intention to place the Ontario Ministry of the Environment on
legal notice forthwith for its negligence in failing to properly
protect the health and property of the residents of this
community.

"The MOE is the regulator, the watch dog, the policemen and they
failed to watch and police Thunder Bay."

According to Mr. Zaitzeff, the MOE did not check the plant or put
enforceable guidelines in place.

"How could they let the city run with an 8-4:30 shift and how
could they let the city do things like that, in the full face of a
storm tracking its way north that blasted our city.  How could
they do that? Where was the watchdog? Where was the policemen?"

Watkins and Mr. Zaitzeff have already filed a C$300-million class-
action lawsuit against the City of Thunder Bay, accusing the
municipality of negligence in its role in not preventing the
sewage treatment plant failure that caused raw sewage to back up
into basements of several hundred homes.

In explaining the need for a second suit, lawyer Chris Watkins
said the alleged negligence by the MOE occurred before, during and
after the recent flooding, stating the government has been aware
for an extensive period of time of changing weather patterns due
to global warming.

"They were aware that these changes could result in storms of this
type.  They had knowledge that such events would become more
frequent and pronounced.  They were aware of the impact of these
changes especially upon infrastructure such as sewage systems and
sewage treatment plants including the ones in Thunder Bay," Mr.
Watkins writes.

"Even with this clear foreseeability and numerous reports
confirming this awareness, they did little or nothing to prepare
Thunder Bay and its citizens for the onslaught they knew or ought
to have known was coming."

Public meetings on both class-action lawsuits are scheduled for
later this week.  Interested parties can express interest on
http://www.watkinslawforthepeople.com

CBC News reports that Mr.Zaitzeff says it's not double-dipping for
his clients to also apply for disaster relief money from the city.

On the weekend, people who suffered losses from the May 28
flooding began filing claims for compensation.

Lawyer Alexander Zaitzeff said the plaintiffs in the suit he is
working on have a right to immediate compensation, adding there's
a standard procedure to ensure people don't double-dip.

"[We track] all the funds that they receive . . . Whatever they
receive is accounted for and deducted from any potential
settlement on their behalf, or court award," he said.

The city's Disaster Relief Committee is screening the applications
for immediate relief.  City clerk John Hannam cautioned that
people who are a "party to a class-action lawsuit . . . should be
consulting legal advice," but that "anyone who was affected by the
disaster, and doesn't have insurance, or has limited insurance, is
eligible to apply to the disaster relief committee program."

Mr. Hannam added the city is not forcing people to sign a release
that prevents them from pursuing the lawsuit.

Thunder Bay residents hoping to benefit from a class-action suit
against the city for flood damage will have to wait awhile.

A joint claim must be approved by a court before it can proceed as
a class action.

Kirk Baert, vice-chair of Class Actions with the Ontario Bar
Association, said the complaints must be traced to a similar cause
to qualify.

"The questions in the lawsuit -- in order to have a class action
-- you want them to be centered on the defendant's conduct, as
opposed to centered on the individual characteristics of the home
owners," Mr. Baert said.

The suit will only go to court if the request for class status is
granted.

But Mr. Baert said 98 per cent of all lawsuits are settled before
even reaching this stage.


TOYOTA: Bid for Leave to Appeal Economic Claims Dismissal Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that for the second time in the
Toyota sudden-acceleration litigation, a federal judge has
rejected plaintiffs attorneys' request for leave to appeal the
dismissal of claims filed on behalf of consumers alleging economic
losses. The economic class action represents about 200 of the 300
cases in the MDL against Toyota over sudden acceleration.


TRAVELZOO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Travelzoo Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 9, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Tomlinson v. Travelzoo Inc., et al., was commenced against the
Company and certain former and current officers and directors.
Another putative class action lawsuit, Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Fund v. Travelzoo Inc., et al., was also filed in that
court and asserted substantially similar claims against the same
defendants.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the two putative class action lawsuits will
be consolidated and a lead plaintiff will be selected.

On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed.  The complaint asserts claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") alleging that between March 16, 2011, and
July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the individual defendants
purportedly issued materially false and misleading statements.  In
particular, the complaint asserts, among other things, allegations
challenging certain statements relating to the Company's growth.
The complaint also makes allegations regarding the Company's
Getaways business and asserts that certain officers and directors
sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public
information.

The action seeks unspecified damages and the Company is unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could
potentially result from the action.  The Company believes that the
action is without merit and intends to defend the suits
vigorously.


TUESDAY MORNING: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Employees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In December 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by hourly, non-
exempt employees in the Superior Court of California in and for
the County of Los Angeles, alleging claims covering meal and rest
period violations.  The putative class action has now been limited
to Senior Sales Associates in California during the class period.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification.  The
Company says it does not expect this complaint to have a material
impact on its results of operations or financial position.


TUESDAY MORNING: Motion to Certify Class in Alabama Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2009, a lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime
compensation was filed in Alabama by a former store manager of
Tuesday Morning Corporation.  The plaintiff sought to certify a
class action made up of current and former store managers.  In
fiscal 2010, the Company filed a request with the court to deny
this motion.  The court has not ruled, and no trial date has been
set.  The Company says it will rigorously defend its position at
trial, and it does not expect these complaints to have a material
impact on its results of operations or financial position.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: One Action Remaining in Explosion-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ultrapar Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary, Companhia Ultragaz S.A., is
the defendant in legal proceedings for damages arising from an
explosion in 1996 in a shopping mall located in the City of
Osasco, State of Sao Paulo.  Such proceedings involve: (i)
individual proceedings brought by victims of the explosion seeking
compensation for loss of income and pain and suffering (ii)
request for compensation for expenses of the shopping mall
administrator and its insurer; and (iii) class action seeking
economic and non-economic damages for all victims injured and
dead.  The subsidiary believes that it produced evidence that the
defective gas pipelines in the shopping mall caused the accident,
and Ultragaz's local LPG storage facilities did not contribute to
the explosion.  Out of the 64 actions decided to date, 63 were
favorable, of which 43 are already shelved; only one was adverse
and the subsidiary was sentenced to pay R$ 17,000.  There is only
one action yet to be decided.  The Company has not recorded a
provision for these cases because it believes that the likeliness
of realization of this contingency is remote, and also because it
has insurance coverage for the full amount in dispute.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


USG CORP: Expects Hearing on Knauf-related Suit Deal in July
------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation expects a hearing date for final approval of a
settlement of claims of homeowners who had filed lawsuits relating
to Knauf Tianjin wallboard will be set in July 2012, according to
the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

L&W Supply Corporation, a Company subsidiary, is one of many
defendants in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard
installed in homes primarily in the southeastern United States
during 2006 and 2007.  The wallboard was made in China by a number
of manufacturers, including Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or
Knauf Tianjin, and was sold or used by hundreds of distributors,
contractors, and homebuilders.  Knauf Tianjin is an affiliate or
indirect subsidiary of Knauf Gips KG, a multinational manufacturer
of building materials headquartered in Germany.  The plaintiffs in
these lawsuits, most of whom are homeowners, claim that the
Chinese-made wallboard is defective and emits elevated levels of
sulfur gases causing a bad smell and corrosion of copper or other
metal surfaces.  Plaintiffs also allege that the Chinese-made
wallboard causes health problems such as respiratory problems and
allergic reactions.  The plaintiffs seek damages for the costs of
removing and replacing the Chinese-made wallboard and other
allegedly damaged property as well as damages for bodily injury,
including medical monitoring in some cases.  Most of the lawsuits
against L&W Supply are part of the consolidated multi-district
litigation titled In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047, pending in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  The focus of the litigation to date has been on
plaintiffs' property damage claims and not their alleged bodily
injury claims.

L&W Supply's sales of Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to the Florida region in 2006, were relatively limited.  The
amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply
could completely furnish approximately 250-300 average-size
houses; however, the actual number of homes involved is greater
because many homes contain a mixture of different brands of
wallboard.  The Company's records contain the addresses of the
homes and other construction sites to which L&W Supply delivered
wallboard, but do not specifically identify the manufacturer of
the wallboard delivered.  Therefore, when Chinese-made wallboard
is identified in a home, the Company can determine from its
records whether L&W Supply delivered wallboard to that home.  Of
the property damage claims asserted to date where the Company's
records indicate it delivered wallboard to the home, it has
identified approximately 290 homes where it has confirmed the
presence of Knauf Tianjin wallboard or, based on the date and
location, the wallboard in the home could be Knauf Tianjin
wallboard.  The Company has resolved the claims relating to
approximately 170 of those homes and, recently reached a class
settlement agreement that may resolve the remainder of those
claims.

In early 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Knauf
that effectively caps its responsibility for property damage
claims relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard at a fixed amount per
square foot for the property at issue.  In late 2011, Knauf
reached a class settlement resolving claims of homeowners who had
filed lawsuits against Knauf relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard.
Pursuant to the settlement, Knauf will establish a fund to either
pay for the remediation of the homeowner's property or provide a
cash payment to the homeowner to resolve their claims, including
any bodily injury claims.  In the first quarter of 2012, the
Company effectively joined in this class settlement by entering
into an agreement pursuant to which it will contribute to the
class settlement fund the same fixed amount per square foot as was
agreed to in its earlier settlement with Knauf.  The Company's
per-square-foot contribution is limited to those homes to which it
supplied Knauf Tianjin wallboard.  Homeowners will have the right
to accept the terms of the settlement or opt out and continue to
pursue their claims in litigation.  The class settlement has been
preliminarily approved by the judge presiding over the multi-
district litigation.  It is expected that the court will set a
date for final approval in July 2012.  If the class settlement is
not approved, or any plaintiffs decline to participate in the
class settlement, the Company's original settlement with Knauf
remains in effect and caps its responsibility for Knauf Tianjin
property damage claims.

Although the vast majority of Chinese drywall claims against the
Company relate to Knauf Tianjin board, the Company has received
some claims relating to other Chinese-made wallboard sold by L&W
Supply.  Most, but not all, of the other Chinese-made wallboard
the Company sold was manufactured by Knauf at other plants in
China.  The Company is not aware of any instances in which the
wallboard from the other Knauf Chinese plants has been determined
to cause odor or corrosion problems.  A small percentage of claims
made against L&W Supply Corporation relate to Chinese-made
wallboard that was not manufactured by Knauf, but which is alleged
to have odor and corrosion problems.  Those claims are not
encompassed within the Company's settlement with Knauf.

As of March 31, 2012, the Company has an accrual of $12 million
for its estimated cost of resolving all the Chinese wallboard
property damage claims pending against L&W Supply and estimated to
be asserted in the future, and, based on the terms of its
settlement with Knauf, it has recorded a related receivable of $9
million.  The Company's accrual does not take into account
litigation costs, which are expensed as incurred, or any set-off
for potential insurance recoveries. The Company's estimated
liability is based on the information available to it regarding
the number and type of pending claims, estimates of likely future
claims, and the costs of resolving those claims.  The Company's
estimated liability could be higher if the other Knauf Chinese
wallboard that it sold is determined to be problematic, the number
of Chinese wallboard claims significantly exceeds its estimates,
or the cost of resolving bodily injury claims is more than
estimated.  Considering all factors known to date, the Company
does not believe that these claims and other similar claims that
might be asserted will have a material effect on its results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.  However, there can
be no assurance that the lawsuits will not have such an effect.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Indemnification Suit v. ADT to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gaetano Formica and Giuseppa Formica commenced an
action against the Port Authority of New York, among others, to
recover for personal injuries caused by Mr. Formica's alleged
exposure to asbestos while he worked at the World Trade Center as
a computer analyst for ADT Security Services, Inc.  The Port
Authority served as ADT's lessor from the time Mr. Formica began
working for ADT in 1973 until ADT ADT moved its offices to
Parsippany, New Jersey, in 1984.  The Port Authority commenced a
third-party action against ADT for indemnification and
contribution.  ADT moves to dismiss the third-party action on the
ground that the Port Authority has not sufficiently alleged a
cause of action.  The Port Authority opposes ADT's motion and
cross-moves for leave to amend and supplement the third-party
complaint.

In a June 14, 2012 decision and order, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler
of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied ADT's motion to
dismiss and the Port Authority's motion to amend the pleadings as
moot.  Judge Heitler ruled that the Port Authority has alleged
sufficient facts to proceed with the third-party indemnification
action, and thus should be allowed to, among other things, proceed
with discovery through the vehicles provided for by Article 31 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The case is GAETANO FORMICA and GIUSEPPA FORMICA, Plaintiffs, v.
BYRON JACKSON PUMPS., et al., Defendants and THE PORT AUTHORITY OF
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
Defendant, 190309/10, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge
Heitler's June 14 Decision is available at http://is.gd/fTN5vd
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Dismisses Exposure Suit v. Gardner Denver
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted defendant Gardner Denver Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment dismissing a complaint filed by Alvin Bickel and his
wife, Marian, to recover for personal injuries caused by Mr.
Bickel's exposure to asbestos while serving the U.S. Navy from
1960 to 1964 as a gunner's mate.  In ruling for the defendant,
Judge Heitler concluded that Gardner has made a prima facie
showing of its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating
that Mr. Bickel did not identify any of its products as a source
of his exposure.

The case is MARIAN BICKEL, as Executrix for the Estate of ALVIN
BICKEL, and MARIAN BICKEL, Individually, Plaintiff, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS,
INC., et al., Defendants, 190311/10, Motion Seq. 004 (N.Y.).  A
copy of Judge Heitler's June 18, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Bk6u5Sfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Ct. Overturns Judgment v. Simpson Timber
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bondex International, Inc. and Simpson Timber Company appeal from
a $4.5 million judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County
entered in favor of Lois, Robin, and Wende Wagner, the wrongful
death beneficiaries of Robert Wagner.  Lois, Robin, and Wende
Wagner cross-appeal the same judgment being reduced by $900,000.
Robert Wagner was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer that
affects the pleural lining of the lungs, resulting from his
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Bondex
and Simpson Timber during the course of his employment.

In a June 19, 2012 opinion, the Court of Appeals of Missouri,
Western District, affirmed the judgment in part and reversed and
remanded in part.  The Appellate Court ruled in favor of Simpson
Timber concluding that plaintiffs' evidence against the company
amounts to nothing more than that the company made ceiling tile,
some of which contained asbestos and some of which did not, and
that Robert Wagner, from time to time, installed the company's
ceiling tile.  This, the Court said, was insufficient to prove
that Mr. Wagner was even exposed to asbestos by Simpson Timber.

The Appellate Court, however, ruled differently for Bondex, noting
that the evidence regarding the company is significantly different
in that it was undisputed that the company joint compound
contained asbestos during the course of the 1960s and 1970s when
Mr. Wagner was exposed to it.  Thus, the Appellate Court concluded
that there is no question as to whether Mr. Wagner was exposed to
asbestos as a result of his contact with Bondex joint control.

The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's ruling on the
amount of damages, but judgment against Simpson Timber is
reversed.

The case is LOIS J. WAGNER, ROBIN G. WAGNER and WENDE L. WAGNER,
Individually and as Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of ROBERT WAGNER,
Appellant-Respondent, v. BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., and SIMPSON
TIMBER COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant, CONWED CORPORATION,
Defendant, No. WD 72474, Consolidated with. No. WD 72482, No. WD
72619 (Mo.).  A copy of the June 19, 2012 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/s9X1XSfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suit v. Sexauer Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana remanded the case captioned CYNTHIA
K. LANDRY, ET AL., v. EAGLE, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No.
12-1022. Section: J(3)(E.D. La.), to the Civil District Court for
Orleans Parish where the action was originally filed.

The action alleged that Dennis Landry had contracted malignant
mesothelioma on account of occupational exposure to asbestos
during the years he worked as a union plumber and sought to
recover damages.  Among the 27 parties named as defendants is J.A.
Sexauer, Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., and Georgia-Pacific, LLC.
Sexauer removed the case to the District Court on the basis of
diversity of citizenship.  In this case, the parties do not appear
to dispute the state citizenship of any relevant party.  Both the
Plaintiffs and Taylor-Seidenbach are Louisiana citizens, and
Sexauer is a citizen of New York and Florida.  The only issue is
whether Sexauer has carried its burden of establishing that there
was complete diversity among the parties at the time that the
notice of removal was filed.

In this case, the parties dispute whether Plaintiffs have
previously settled their claims against Taylor-Seidenbach, thereby
effectively removing Sexauer as nondiverse defendant from the suit
and creating complete diversity.  Accordingly, the District Court
looked to state law to determine whether Sexauer has demonstrated
the existence of a binding settlement agreement under Louisiana
law as of the date this matter was removed.  In granting the
Motion to Remand, the District Court found Sexauer has failed to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs
have settled their claims against Taylor-Seidenbach, or that any
settlement the parties may have theoretically reached constitutes
a valid compromise under Louisiana law.

A copy of Judge Barbier's June 19, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/5EBohffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Plaintiff to Challenge Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii granted Plaintiff David M. Thompson, Jr.'s
Motion for Leave to Take an Interlocutory Appeal from the order
dated April 17, 2012, after determining that the proposed appeal
could materially affect the outcome of the litigation.  The April
17 Order denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit after finding that at least one of
the Defendants has established all of the requirements necessary
for federal officer removal.

Judge Kobayashi found that the Plaintiff's proposed interlocutory
appeal will challenge the Court's ruling that federal officer
removal jurisdiction exists in this case.  It is the Court's view
that it cannot be disputed that the existence of federal
jurisdiction is a threshold determination.  Further, if the Ninth
Circuit reverses the Court's ruling that federal jurisdiction
exists, the Ninth Circuit will order that the case be remanded to
the state court, terminating the action in this district court,
Judge Kobayashi pointed out.  Thus, the judge concluded, the
outcome of Plaintiff's proposed interlocutory appeal "could
materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district
court."

The case is DAVID M. THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. CRANE COMPANY,
ET AL., Defendants, Civil No. 11-00638 LEK-RLP (Hawaii).  A copy
of Judge Kobayashi's June 19, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/hnuopMfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses $6.6MM Judgment v. Union Carbide
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, in the
case captioned Union Carbide Corporation, Appellant, v. William P.
Aubin, Appellee, No. 3D10-1982 (Fla. App. Ct.), granted Union
Carbide's appeal from a final judgment awarding Mr. Aubin
$6,624,150 in damages on his asbestos-related, products liability
claims after finding that Mr. Aubin failed to present any evidence
demonstrating that the defective design of SG-210 Calidria caused
him harm, peritoneal mesothelioma.  In addition, because the jury
instructions given by the trial court were inconsistent with the
law in the Third District and in effect directed the verdict in
favor of Mr. Aubin, the Appellate Court reversed and remanded the
case for a new trial as to the warning defect claim.  A copy of
the Appellate Court's Opinion filed June 20, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/QPtGOKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had Gross Loss Reserves of $466.7MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of
$466.7 million at March 31, 2012, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Asbestos and Environmental Exposures (A&E)
exposures represent a separate exposure group for monitoring and
evaluating reserve adequacy.
    
                               Three Months Ended
                                    March 31,
                               2012          2011
                             (Dollars in millions)
                             ---------------------
Gross Basis:

Beginning of period reserves   $499.9      $554.8
Incurred losses                   0.1           -
Paid losses                     (13.6)      (19.0)
End of period reserves         $486.5      $535.8

Net Basis:

Beginning of period reserves   $480.2      $532.9
Incurred losses                   0.1           -
Paid losses                     (12.7)      (18.2)
End of period reserves         $467.6      $514.7

"At March 31, 2012, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of $144.5 million representing case reserves reported by
ceding companies, $96.5 million representing additional case
reserves established by us on assumed reinsurance claims, $40.4
million representing case reserves established by us on direct
excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and $205.1
million representing IBNR reserves.

"With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2012, we had gross
asbestos loss reserves of $466.7 million, or 95.9%, of total A&E
reserves, of which $372.9 million was for assumed business and
$93.8 million was for direct business."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $47MM Reserves for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2012, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had a reserve
of $47 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims,
according to the Form 10-Q filed by Exelon Corporation, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Peco Energy
Company and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Generation maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in
certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an
undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs
associated with handling these matters, which could be material.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, Generation had reserved
approximately $47 million and $49 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2012,
approximately $13 million of this amount related to 172 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $34 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary.

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

"Approximately 480 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
Constellation have pending claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and
third party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed
against BGE and former Constellation subsidiaries now owned by
Generation in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which
have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment by BGE or Constellation and a small minority of these
cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to its
financial results.

"Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, none of the pending cases are set for trial.
Given the limited discovery, BGE and Generation do not know the
specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the
possible loss relating to these claims. The specific facts not
known include:

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

   * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

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

   * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
     exposure.

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

Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company engaged
through its principal subsidiaries in the energy generation and
energy distribution businesses. Prior to March 12, 2012, its
principal, wholly owned subsidiaries included ComEd, PECO and
Generation. On March 12, 2012, in conjunction with the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, Constellation Energy Group, Inc., merged into
Exelon with Exelon continuing as the surviving corporation. As a
result of the merger transaction, Generation includes
Constellation's customer supply and generation businesses. BGE,
formerly Constellation's regulated utility subsidiary, is now a
subsidiary of Exelon.


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

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Unit Still Defending Claims & Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's subsidiaries continue to defend asbestos-
related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2012.

The Company's subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved
legal actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the
ordinary course of business involving, among other things, product
liability, commercial, employment, workers' compensation,
intellectual property claims and environmental matters. The
Company establishes reserves in a manner that is consistent with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for
costs associated with such matters when liability is probable and
those costs are capable of being reasonably estimated. Although it
is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss or
recovery, based upon current information, management believes the
eventual outcome of these unresolved legal actions, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.

In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002,
Invensys plc has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the
Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The
indemnity notice period for certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities, other than those relating to the Ellsworth Industrial
Park Site, expired in November 2009, and the indemnity notice
period for certain pre-closing environmental liabilities relating
to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site expires in November 2012.
The indemnity obligations are subject, together with indemnity
obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap
equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of $900
million. The most significant actions and proceedings are:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
     named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together
     with at least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth
     Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois
     (the "Site"), by the United States Environmental Protection
     Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois Environmental Protection
     Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries' Downers Grove property
     is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial Complex. The
     USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more releases
     or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
     hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
     including but not limited to a release or threatened release
     on or from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief
     sought by the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation
     and potential remediation of the Site and reimbursement of
     USEPA's past costs. Rexnord Industries' allocated share of
     past and future costs related to the Site, including for
     investigation and/or remediation, could be significant. All
     previously pending property damage and personal injury
     lawsuits against the Company related to the Site have been
     settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity obligation,
     Invensys continues to defend the Company in matters related
     to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are
     pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
     relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
     presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
     previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division
     and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior
     owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs
     to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
     Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
     multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
     injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a
     product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally,
     there are approximately 4,000 individuals who have filed
     asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these
     claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation
     inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
     matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the
     Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs
     related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes
     that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
     Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs
     of these matters.

In connection with the Falk Corporation ("Falk") acquisition,
Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification
against certain contingent liabilities, including coverage for
certain pre-closing environmental liabilities and certain
products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company
believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton
Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with
respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these
claims, such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or
dollar limitations. Certain pre-closing environmental matters are
subject to an indemnity notice period that expires in May 2012.

The most significant actions and proceedings for which Hamilton
Sundstrand has accepted responsibility:

   * Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
     approximately 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court
     in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal
     injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain
     clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There
     are approximately 500 claimants in these suits. The ultimate
     outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined.
     Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these
     lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid
     100% of the costs to date.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
and class action related litigation. As of March 31, 2012, Zurn
and an average of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were
defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 27,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
As of March 31, 2012, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $42.0 million of which Zurn expects to pay
approximately $33.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. However, there are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.

As a result, Zurn's actual liability could differ from the
estimate. Further, while this current asbestos liability is based
on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such
liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability
could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2012, is
approximately $257.3 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by this insurance. However, principally as a result of
the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance
carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first $181.3 million of
aggregate liabilities. In order for the next $51.0 million of
insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management
estimates that it would need to satisfy $14.0 million of asbestos
claims. Layered within the final $25.0 million of the total $257.3
million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to
satisfy an additional $80.0 million of asbestos claims. If
required to pay any such amounts, the Company could pursue
recovery against the insolvent carriers, but it is not currently
possible to determine the likelihood or amount of such recoveries,
if any.

As of March 31, 2012, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of $42.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $257.3 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $257.3 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord), formerly Rexnord Holdings, Inc., is
a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management.
Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes
gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and
seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment,
and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including
Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform
operates in the commercial construction market for water
management products and the municipal water and wastewater
treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes
drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow
prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered
valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Unit Liable in Confirmed Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity PLC's reserve categories include losses from
construction defects and asbestos and environmental ("A&E"),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

For construction defect losses, the Company's actuaries organize
losses by the year in which they were reported. To estimate losses
from claims that have not been reported, various extrapolation
techniques are applied to the pattern of claims that have been
reported to estimate the number of claims yet to be reported. This
process requires analysis of several factors including the rate at
which policyholders report claims to the Company, the impact of
judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes and other
factors. An average claim size is determined from past experience
and applied to the number of unreported claims to estimate
reserves for these claims.

Establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves
considerably more judgment than other types of claims due to,
among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in
bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos-related liabilities,
and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of
recovery and broaden the scope of coverage. The insurance industry
continues to receive a substantial number of asbestos-related
bodily injury claims, with an increasing focus being directed
toward other parties, including installers of products containing
asbestos rather than against asbestos manufacturers. This shift
has resulted in significant insurance coverage litigation
implicating applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if
any, including but not limited to, determinations as to whether or
not an asbestos-related bodily injury claim is subject to
aggregate limits of liability found in most comprehensive general
liability policies.

In response to these continuing developments, management increased
gross and net A&E reserves during the second quarter of 2008 to
reflect its best estimate of A&E exposures. In 2009, one of the
Company's insurance companies was dismissed from a lawsuit seeking
coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies. The suit
involved issues related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos
related bodily injury claims and future claims. The dismissal was
the result of a settlement of a disputed claim related to accident
year 1984. The settlement is conditioned upon certain legal events
occurring which will trigger financial obligations by the
insurance company. Management will continue to monitor the
developments of the litigation to determine if any additional
financial exposure is present.

On March 16, 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California issued an Opinion confirming a
Bankruptcy Plan for a named insured including an injunction under
11 U.S.C. Section 524(g).  The injunction, also called a
"channeling injunction", precludes, inter alia, non-settling
insurers from asserting claims against United National and
asbestos related claims by third parties against United National
that are related to the named insured. The Bankruptcy Court issued
an opinion but has not yet issued an order confirming the plan.
The plan will need to be confirmed by the United States District
Court and further appeals are likely. The Courts must yet
determine if the channeling injunction will take effect during an
appeal. The settlement agreement requires a monetary payment by
United National upon plan confirmation by the District Court.

Global Indemnity plc is a holding company. Its principal asset is
its ownership of the shares of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries, including those of its Insurance Operations: United
National Insurance Company, Diamond State Insurance Company,
United National Specialty Insurance Company, United National
Casualty Insurance Company, Penn-America Insurance Company, Penn-
Star Insurance Company, and Penn-Patriot Insurance Company; and
its Reinsurance Operations: Wind River Reinsurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,018 Open Claims End March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had 8,018 open asbestos-related
claims at the end of the first quarter, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

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

Claims for Asbestos Liability against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation, along with certain asbestos claims asserted against
the inactive subsidiary in dissolution, for the three months ended
March 31, 2012:

   Open claims at end of period                   8,018 (1)
   Gross settlement and defense costs (in 000's) $4,853
   Claims resolved                                  215

   (1) Included as "open claims" are approximately 1,663 claims
       classified in various jurisdictions as "inactive" or
       transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on multi-
       district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.

A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs were
paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and can be
settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing of
settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In 2006, for the first time,
a claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the Corporation's
subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted in a defense
verdict. Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008 the
California Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded
the case back to the trial court.

On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation subsidiary filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against
thirteen domestic insurance companies, certain underwriters at
Lloyd's, London and certain London market insurance companies, and
Howden. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the
respective rights and obligations of the parties under excess
insurance policies not included within the Coverage Arrangement
that were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as
respects claims against the Corporation and its subsidiary for
Asbestos Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims
against Howden arising from the Products. Various counterclaims,
cross claims and third party claims have been filed in the
litigation.

The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2010 for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2020 was
$218,303,000,of which approximately 85% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2020 and future defense costs. The reserve at March 31,
2012 was $192,799,000. While it is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the
Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide
for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the
nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2020.
Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may
be incurred after 2020.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott International Still Defending Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend various
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory
judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District
Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and
INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no
obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury
claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim
requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20
underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on
January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse judgment or material
losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, we have not
accrued any amounts relating to this contingency. Although there
is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount or potential
range of loss is not estimable at this time. The insurer-
plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a purported
attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage
obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters
for which we have given notice that we could potentially seek
coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every
matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating
what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination
of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be
reasonably estimated.

"On December 16, 2005, a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs.
J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et al.("Antoine Suit"), was filed in the
24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, by
approximately 88 plaintiffs against approximately 215 defendants,
including our subsidiaries formerly known as JRMI and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation ("DHEC"), generally alleging injuries for
exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise
while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen.
This case was dismissed by the Court on January 10, 2007, without
prejudice to plaintiffs' rights to refile their claims.

"On January 29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine
Suit filed a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v. McDermott, Inc.,
et al. (the "Boudreaux Suit"), in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, against JRMI and our
subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated, and
approximately 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act
seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes,
solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. The Boudreaux Suit
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which entered an
order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order of
the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-
defendants. Additionally, on January 29, 2007, another 43
plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled
Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "New Antoine
Suit"), in the 164th Judicial District Court for Harris County,
Texas, against JRMI, our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott
Incorporated and approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42
maritime products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and
noise.

"On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying
all activity and deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other than
service of process and answer/appearance dates, until further
order of the Court. The New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion
to lift the stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the
Texas District Court. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an
unspecified amount in both the Boudreaux Suit and New Antoine Suit
cases and attorneys' fees in the New Antoine Suit. We cannot
reasonably estimate the extent of a potential judgment against us,
if any, and we intend to vigorously defend these suits.

"Additionally, due to the nature of our business, we are, from
time to time, involved in litigation or subject to disputes or
claims related to our business activities, including, among other
things:

   * performance- or warranty-related matters under our customer
     and supplier contracts and other business arrangements; and


   * workers' compensation claims, Jones Act claims, occupational
     hazard claims, including asbestos-exposure claims, premises
     liability claims and other claims.

"Based upon our prior experience, we do not expect that any of
these other litigation proceedings, disputes and claims will have
a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows; however, because of the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and, in some cases, the
availability and amount of potentially applicable insurance, we
can provide no assurance that the resolution of any particular
claim or proceeding to which we are a party will not have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows for the fiscal period in which that
resolution occurs."

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the Republic of Panama, is a leading engineering,
procurement, construction and installation company focused on
designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas projects
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Continues to Defend 225 PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 225
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 760 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

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

"There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has
alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each
named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the
amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. conducts its business primarily through
the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio
Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). The Company is an industrial supply
chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer's Reconsideration Bid in Quigley Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2012,
disclosed that it is seeking reconsideration of the affirmation by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the
preliminary injunction in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding does
not prohibit actions directly against Pfizer Inc. for alleged
personal injury from exposure to Quigley products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   * the payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the
     Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a second installment of $300
     million upon Pfizer's receipt of releases of asbestos-
     related claims against Pfizer Inc. from Ad Hoc Committee
     claimants holding an additional $300 million in the
     aggregate of claims following the earlier of the effective
     date of a revised plan of reorganization and April 6, 2013;

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

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

"Following the execution of the settlement agreement with the Ad
Hoc Committee, Quigley filed a revised plan of reorganization and
accompanying disclosure statement with the Bankruptcy Court in
April 2011. Under the revised plan, and consistent with the
additional charges recorded in 2010, we expect to contribute an
additional amount to the Trust, if and when the Bankruptcy Court
confirms the plan, of cash and non-cash assets (including
insurance proceeds) with a value in excess of $550 million. The
Bankruptcy Court must find that the revised plan meets the
requisite standards of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before it confirms
the plan. We expect that, if approved by claimants, confirmed by
the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court and upheld on any
subsequent appeal, the revised reorganization plan will result in
the District Court entering a permanent injunction directing
pending claims, as well as future claims, alleging personal injury
from exposure to Quigley products to the Trust, subject to the
recent decision of the Second Circuit. There is no assurance that
the plan will be confirmed by the courts.

"In April 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York that the Bankruptcy Court's preliminary
injunction in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding does not prohibit
actions directly against Pfizer Inc. for alleged personal injury
from exposure to Quigley products based on the "apparent
manufacturer" theory of liability under Pennsylvania law. The
Second Circuit's decision is procedural and does not address the
merits of the plaintiffs' claims under Pennsylvania law. We are
seeking reconsideration of the decision by the Second Circuit.

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

Pfizer Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, manufacture, and sale of medicines for
people and animals worldwide. It primarily offers Celebrex,
Chantix/Champix, Lipitor, Lyrica, Premarin, Pristiq, and Viagra
pharmaceutical products in the therapeutic and disease areas of
Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular, erectile dysfunction,
genitourinary, depressive disorder, pain, respiratory, and smoking
cessation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Units Still Defending Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2012,
disclosed that the Company and its subsidiaries continue to defend
asbestos exposure suits.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims. As of March 31, 2012, approximately
67,700 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to
explore various means to resolve, these claims.

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

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

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

Pfizer Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, manufacture, and sale of medicines for
people and animals worldwide. It primarily offers Celebrex,
Chantix/Champix, Lipitor, Lyrica, Premarin, Pristiq, and Viagra
pharmaceutical products in the therapeutic and disease areas of
Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular, erectile dysfunction,
genitourinary, depressive disorder, pain, respiratory, and smoking
cessation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Posted $321,000 Liability at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc., has a legal obligation to handle and dispose of
asbestos at the East Dubuque Facility and property located near
Natchez, Mississippi, in a special manner when undergoing major or
minor renovations or when buildings at these locations are
demolished, even though the timing and method of settlement are
conditional on future events that may or may not be in its
control. As a result, the Company has developed an estimate for a
conditional obligation for this disposal. In addition, the
Company, through its normal repair and maintenance program, may
encounter situations in which it is required to remove asbestos in
order to complete other work. The Company applied the expected
present value technique to calculate the fair value of the asset
retirement obligation for each property and, accordingly, the
asset and related obligation for each property have been recorded.
In accordance with the applicable guidance, the liability is
increased over time and such increase is recorded as accretion
expense. The liability at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was
$321,000 and $311,000, respectively. The accretion expense for the
three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was $10,000 and $8,000,
respectively.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

Rentech, Inc., is a provider of clean energy solutions. The
Company owns and operates a nitrogen fertilizer plant in East
Dubuque, Illinois, that manufactures and sells natural gas-based
nitrogen fertilizer products within the corn-belt region in the
United States. It is developing energy projects to produce
certified synthetic fuels and electric power from carbon-
containing materials, such as biomass, waste and fossil resources.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Posted $3MM Liability End March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., recorded a liability of $3.0
million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities
at its properties, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company states: "All of our properties (but not properties for
which we hold an option to purchase but do not yet own) have been
subject to Phase I environmental assessments or updates of
existing Phase I environmental assessments. Such assessments
generally consisted of a visual inspection of the properties,
review of federal and state environmental databases and certain
information regarding historic uses of the property and adjacent
areas and the preparation and issuance of written reports. Some of
the properties contain, or contained, underground storage tanks
used for storing petroleum products or wastes typically associated
with automobile service or other operations conducted at the
properties. Certain properties contain, or contained, dry-cleaning
establishments utilizing solvents. Where believed to be warranted,
samplings of building materials or subsurface investigations were
undertaken. At certain properties, where warranted by the
conditions, we have developed and implemented an operations and
maintenance program that establishes operating procedures with
respect to asbestos-containing materials. The cost associated with
the development and implementation of such programs was not
material. We have also obtained environmental insurance coverage
at certain of our properties.

"We believe that our properties are in compliance in all material
respects with all federal, state and local ordinances and
regulations regarding the handling, discharge and emission of
hazardous or toxic substances. As of March 31, 2012, we have
recorded in our financial statements a liability of $3.0 million
related to potential future asbestos abatement activities at our
properties which are not expected to have a material impact on our
financial condition or results of operations. We have not been
notified by any governmental authority, and are not otherwise
aware, of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating
to hazardous or toxic substances in connection with any of our
present or former properties. Therefore, we have not recorded any
liability related to hazardous or toxic substances. Nevertheless,
it is possible that the environmental assessments available to us
do not reveal all potential environmental liabilities. It is also
possible that subsequent investigations will identify material
contamination, that adverse environmental conditions have arisen
subsequent to the performance of the environmental assessments, or
that there are material environmental liabilities of which
management is unaware. Moreover, no assurances can be given that
(i) future laws, ordinances or regulations will not impose any
material environmental liability or (ii) the current environmental
condition of the properties has not been or will not be affected
by tenants and occupants of the properties, by the condition of
properties in the vicinity of the properties or by third parties
unrelated to us, the Operating Partnership or the relevant
property's partnership."

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., is a self-managed, self-
administered, fully-integrated real estate investment trust that
is engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, leasing,
management and operation of regional shopping malls, open-air
centers, community centers and office properties.  Its shopping
centers are located in 26 states, but are primarily in the
southeastern and midwestern United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Had 100 Pending Cases at April 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. continues to defend 100 personal injury cases related
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2012.

The Company states: "We are a party to various legal proceedings
and administrative actions that are incidental to our operations.
These proceedings include personal injury cases, 100 of which are
pending as of April 30, 2012, in which we are one of many
defendants. Electricians have filed a majority of these cases,
primarily in Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking
compensatory, special, and punitive damages. Typically in these
cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a
heat-resistant asbestos fiber. Our alleged predecessors had a
small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased
production of such products more than 20 years ago. Through
April 30, 2012, we have been dismissed, or reached agreement to be
dismissed, in more than 400 similar cases without any going to
trial, and with only a small number of these involving any payment
to the claimant. In our opinion, the proceedings and actions in
which we are involved should not, individually or in the
aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, operating results, or cash flows. However, since the
trends and outcome of this litigation are inherently uncertain, we
cannot give absolute assurance regarding the future resolution of
such litigation, or that such litigation may not become material
in the future."

Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a portfolio of
cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics. Its
products provide for the transmission of signals for data, sound,
and video applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there have been
only a few such cases that name Kaanapali Land, there are a
substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali
Land are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation. Kaanapali Land does not
believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's
obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently
believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any
material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no
assurance in this regard.

On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-
count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and
recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief
as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an
insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity
various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to
asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none
of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or
policies in question, a judicial determination of the material
terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff
sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms,
rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the
policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that
plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff.

D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that
it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to
vigorously defend. In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled
to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of
amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In
order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while
such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and
Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby
Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note
delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C
insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the
parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the
amount of $1,618. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali
Land in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. The deadline for filing
proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in
October 2008. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land filed claims
that aggregated approximately $26,800,000 relating to both secured
and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In
addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that
represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of
claim on behalf of approximately 700 claimants. While it is not
likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim
against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown
how the trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected,
however, that the Company will receive any material additional
amounts in the liquidation of D/C.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

Kaanapali Land, LLC, is the reorganized entity resulting from the
Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii, LLC (now known as
KLC Land Company, LLC), certain of its subsidiaries and FHT
Corporation under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated
June 11, 2002.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Defending Asbestos-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., has been named, along with multiple other
defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business
operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no
longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the
businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. With
respect to these claims, the Company believes that it has no such
liability.  For such claims, the Company is uninsured and either
contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually
obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former
Magnetek business operations.   The Company aggressively seeks
dismissal from these proceedings. Management does not believe the
asbestos proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have
a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2012.

Magnetek, Inc., is a global provider of digital power control
systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in
material handling, elevator and energy delivery applications.  The
Company's products consist primarily of programmable motion
control and power conditioning systems used on the following
applications: overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; coal mining
equipment; and renewable energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cera Says Contamination at St George's Contained
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Van Beynen of The Fairfax NZ News reports that asbestos
found at St George's Hospital has been contained and does not pose
a health hazard, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
(Cera) says.

Cera chief executive Roger Sutton said the authority knew the
building contained asbestos before demolition started, and
asbestos was removed by Nikau Demolition as the building came
down.

Demolition rubble at the site was monitored for asbestos, and
small traces had been secured.

Sutton said the Canterbury District Health Board was confident the
particles left in the rubble did not pose a risk to the hospital's
staff, visitors, patients or neighbors.

The Ministry of Health had been informed, he said.

A Nikau spokesman said the asbestos was in the fine matter at the
site and was situated at particular spots.  Plenty of water and
tarpaulins were stopping the asbestos from getting in the air.

Monitors around the perimeter would indicate if asbestos was
escaping, he said.

Material contaminated with asbestos would eventually be dumped at
a special site at the Kate Valley landfill in North Canterbury.

Asbestos has been an issue as the city's buildings have been
demolished since the February 2011 earthquake.

A large dump in a KiwiRail warehouse in Cass St, Sydenham, has
been identified as an asbestos risk.

The operators of the dump, now closed, did not notify authorities
of the possible asbestos problem.

Department of Labour southern general manager Jean Martin said the
department had received 320 notifications of hazardous work
involving the removal of asbestos in Canterbury between the
February 2011 quake and June 18 this year.

"Our construction inspectors have identified that asbestos issues
tend to stem from sites that have not notified the department of
the hazardous work being undertaken," she said.

"The predominant reason for this is usually the failure of the
contractor scoping the work to identify or suspect [then test for]
the presence of asbestos."

The department was unable to provide the number of sites where
asbestos had been identified by its inspectors but not notified by
site operators.

It was helping contractors identify hazards, including asbestos,
with training workshops due to finish next week, Martin said.

It had recently established a team of health and safety inspectors
whose focus was solely on the Canterbury rebuild and recovery.
"The department wants to ensure that workers in the Canterbury
rebuild are not injured, killed or contract occupational diseases
as a result of inadequate health and safety systems in the
workplace," she said.

Once the department was notified about asbestos, a decision was
made on the ensuing process, taking into account previous work by
the company and how the asbestos could be removed.

Environment Canterbury told The Press that it had received
allegations about 44 demolition dump sites since February and had
prosecuted the owners of two.

It had issued 15 abatement notices relating to seven sites and had
issued one infringement notice.

The remainder of the sites had been investigated and the
investigation closed or an investigation was still in progress.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Factors in 8,000 Yearly Cancer Deaths in UK
------------------------------------------------------------------
AnaesthesiaUK reports that around 8,000 cancer deaths in Britain
each year are linked to occupations -- especially those where
asbestos, diesel engine fumes or shift work is involved -- a new
study shows.  This equates to around 5% of all cancer deaths in
Britain.

The study, funded by the Health and Safety Executive and published
in the British Journal of Cancer, also found that just under half
of these deaths were among male construction workers who are most
likely to come into contact with asbestos as well as other
important carcinogens such as silica and diesel engine exhaust.

Researchers used a list of work-related cancer causing substances
identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) to calculate the impact of work on cancer cases and deaths.
And they found that around 13,600 new cancer cases are caused by
risk factors related to work each year.

After asbestos, the main work-related risk factors were night
shift-work -- linked to around 1,960 female breast cancer cases,
mineral oil from metal and printing industries -- linked to around
1730 cases of bladder, lung and non-melanoma skin cancers, sun
exposure -- linked to around 1540 skin cancer cases, silica
exposure -- linked to 910 cancer cases and diesel engine exhaust
-- linked to 800 cases.

And researchers warned that these estimates of cancer cases and
deaths linked to occupation are likely to be conservative and
could be even higher as new work-related risk factors are
identified or the understanding of potential risk factors becomes
more definite.

In addition there are now more cases of cancer than there were
back in 2004.

Lead author Dr. Lesley Rushton, an occupational epidemiologist
based at Imperial College London, said:

"This study gives us a clear insight into how the jobs people do
affect their risk of cancer.

"We hope these findings will help develop ways of reducing health
risks caused by exposure to carcinogens in the workplace.

"The cancer with the greatest number of cases and deaths linked to
work is lung -- a disease which is hard to detect early and has
poor survival.  Over 30 occupational exposures have been
identified by IARC as definite or probable lung cancer causing
substances.

"One of the best ways we can beat the disease is by preventing it
in the first place.  Smoking has the single biggest impact on lung
cancer risk, but work-place risks are also having a significant
effect."

Asbestos remains the most important occupational risk factor.
Even though it is no longer used in construction, maintenance on
old buildings can still be a risk for workers today.  And the
number of asbestos-related cancers will continue to rise as they
can take a long time to develop.

Researchers said that some of the risk factors had an effect on
cancer beyond the workplace -- for example, asbestos can be found
in some households and diesel engine exhaust contributes to air
pollution.

Sara Hiom, director of information at Cancer Research UK, said:

"It's very worrying to see so many people developing and dying
from occupation-related cancers.  A large proportion of the deaths
are a result of exposure to asbestos in past decades and improved
safety measures should mean that in the next generation or so we
will see this number tail off dramatically.

"The Health and Safety Executive has commissioned a review of the
evidence on shift work and cancer -- at the moment it's still only
classified as a probable cause of cancer.  Once the review is
complete in 2015, we will have a more definite understanding of
the role it may play in influencing cancer risk.

"At this point, we expect the government and employers to take
fast and appropriate action to minimize the risks faced by workers
and Cancer Research UK will be watching this closely.

"Not smoking is the single most important thing that can reduce
the likelihood of developing cancer -- to put this in perspective,
there are around 43,000 cancer deaths due to smoking in the UK
each year.  Maintaining a healthy weight, cutting back on alcohol
and taking plenty of exercise can also have a big impact on
reducing the risk of cancer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Ravenswood Hospital Abatement Up in July
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Wetli of The Center Square Journal reports that asbestos
abatement is set to begin on the vacant Ravenswood Hospital (4550
N. Winchester) in early July, and demolition will follow sometime
around Labor Day.  Robert Nauert, director of finance and
personnel at Lycee Francais Chicago, which purchased the property,
and Bill Beaman, vice president of American Demolition Corp.,
charged with oversight of the abatement process, met with a
committee of area residents last night to talk them through a
construction schedule that stretches from this summer into 2015.

Erin Kupsco, representing the West Ravenswood Neighbors
Association, came prepared with a laundry list of concerns.  "It's
going to be loud and we're aware of that," she told CSJ.  While
residents are overall excited about the project and the
anticipated rise in property values, "It's just the fear of the
unknown.  What all is in there?"

Beaman clarified that, aside from the asbestos, the building has
already been cleared of any other potentially hazardous material.
"The X-ray machines are all gone, there's no med waste
whatsoever," he said.  "All the boiler stuff is gone, the freon's
gone."

To rid the building of asbestos, crews of 12-15 workers will enter
the main tower during early- to mid-July to conduct the abatement.
"You won't see much but there will be a lot of work going on,"
said Beaman.

For those worried about toxins entering the surrounding
atmosphere, Beaman outlined the process, which should take no more
than six or seven weeks to complete.  Any openings in the building
will be sealed off with plastic and plywood.  A "negative air"
machine will pull fresh air into the structure while also ensuring
none leaks out.  Material, including tiling and pipe and duct
wrapping, will be bundled and double-bagged in polyethylene,
placed in closed containers and carted away.  (So where you really
don't want to live is next to the designated landfill.)

"[Crew members] have to be completely suited up and decontaminated
when they leave," he added.  Air quality levels require approval
before critical barriers are removed.

Demolition of the tower, stripped down to concrete and steel, will
take place at the same time that asbestos abatement continues in
the other buildings that stand in the footprint of Lycee's new
campus.  "The crew gets smaller and the equipment gets bigger,"
Beaman said.

A portable crusher (equipped with an internal water sprayer to
eliminate dust) will gnash up concrete and masonry onsite, to be
saved for later use as backfill.  "It's probably as loud as a
bus," Beaman said of the crusher.  "Probably the most aggravating
thing you're going to hear is back-up alarms on equipment."

Regarding potential traffic snarls on adjacent side streets,
Beaman said that trucks, excavators ("bigger than a small house")
and a 120-ton crawler crane will be routed to the site via Damen
and a short stretch of Sunnyside.  "No semis on Wilson," Beaman
promised.  Montrose, plagued with its own never-ending
construction woes, isn't likely to see any action either.  Nauert
added that residents would receive ample advanced notice of any
alley closures or street blockages, which typically wouldn't last
more than a day at a time.

If all goes well, demolition could be completed around Christmas.
Which brought up another question from Kupsco.  "What about the
rats?" she asked.  The last thing residents want is for the
rodents, evicted from their comfy home in the hospital, to seek
shelter in neighboring alleys and dwellings.

"The city mandates we do rodent inspections," responded Beaman,
noting that ADC is required to hire a licensed exterminator.
"We're not allowed to wreck a building until [the rats] are all
gone."  While the city will certify the building is rat-free
before giving the demolition the go-ahead, Jim Poole of the 47th
Ward office promised to also proactively bait a grid of alleys
surrounding the site.

Following the asbestos abatement and demolition, activity will
cease until construction of the Lycee's new school begins in 2014;
the school is scheduled to open in September 2015.  In the
interim, the space will simply resemble a gravel lot.  "I don't
know how nice I can make rubble look," said Nauert.

"At the end of the day, it'll be a lot prettier than what's
there," said Kupsco.

The committee, composed of individuals who indicated at a previous
meeting their desire to be involved in ongoing updates, will meet
on an occasional basis throughout the construction period.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASC Awards B&B "Friend of the Community" Honors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Serving the Community honored Baron and Budd with an
award for the firm's long-standing history of charitable donations
to the organization.  Accepting the award on the firm's behalf was
Russell Budd, president and managing shareholder of Baron and
Budd.  Budd was praised for being a crystal level donor for the
past four years, the highest level recognized, in addition to
frequent charitable donations and support throughout the history
of ASC.  This is the first "Friend of the Community" Award to be
given out by ASC.

"This is such a great opportunity for attorneys to really impact
the community," said Budd.  "This award is such an honor, and I am
so thankful for ASC and the great work they do."

ASC is a volunteer organization comprised of female lawyers
dedicated to combining their resources and talents to support
local nonprofit organizations with programs that benefit women,
children and families.  Each year, a new nonprofit organization is
selected to be the beneficiary of ASC's donations.  This year's
beneficiary is the Trinity River Commission, an organization
dedicated to promoting literacy, enhancing academic performance
and developing academic success in West Dallas.

Baron and Budd has been a leader in spearheading ASC initiatives,
sponsoring the organization's silent auctions and providing major
donations and support.  The firm also has a strong history of
philanthropy, including charitable donations to multiple
nonprofits and sponsorships.  Baron and Budd is proud to be a 2012
platinum sponsor of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
(ADAO), a nonprofit group dedicated to raising awareness about the
dangerous of asbestos and advocating for a global ban.  Budd also
sits on the Foundation Board of the National Comprehensive Cancer
Network (NCCN), where he is the only attorney.

                  About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm
with a 30-year history of "Protecting What's Right" for people,
communities and businesses harmed by negligence.  Baron & Budd's
size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex
cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business
entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil
spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, dangerous
medications and medical devices, Chinese drywall, insurance
claims, commercial litigation, consumer fraud, securities fraud
and asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma.  Learn more
about the mesothelioma attorneys at Baron & Budd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement of Old Davies Center Nears Completion
----------------------------------------------------------------
WEAU.com reports that the construction of the new Davies Center
and the demolition of the old Davies Center are continuing at UW-
Eau Claire.

As of June 22, work crews are in the process of removing asbestos
from portions of the old Davies that are uninhabited.

Complete deconstruction won't be able to begin until staff can
move into the new center.

The move is expected to take a few more weeks, at which point the
deconstruction process can be completed.

The university says once the old Davies Center is torn down, the
area where it stood will be turned into green area and the Little
Niagara Creek will be freed to run through campus.

At the same time, a sneak peak at the new Davies Center shows the
170,000 square foot building has features like a movie theater, a
new alumni room, a large ballroom, and an outdoor terrace.

The 48.8 million dollar building is expected to be open at the end
of July.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BLF Raises Fibro Awareness in Breathe Easy Week
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Hunt of Access Legal relates that this year, during Breathe
Easy Week, the British Lung Foundation aims to raise awareness of
the proven link between asbestos exposure and lung disease.

Asbestos is still believed to be present in 500,000 buildings in
the UK and can be found in ceilings, walls and insulation products
such as pipe and boiler lagging.  However, it only becomes harmful
when disturbed and the asbestos fibers are released into the
atmosphere.  BLF have devised a "Take 5 and stay alive"
questionnaire that anyone considering  DIY around the home should
take to see whether there is any risk to them being exposed to
asbestos.

Others may have been exposed to asbestos at work.  Asbestos was
used as a building, insulating and fireproof material,
particularly from the 1950's to 1980's.

Someone who has been exposed to asbestos may not present with
symptoms until many years after the exposure -- sometimes up to
50 or 60 years later.  They may go on to develop lung cancer,
asbestosis, pleural thickening or mesothelioma (an asbestos
related cancer).

If you do believe you are suffering from an asbestos related
illness, you should seek medical advice immediately.  Legal advice
should also be sought to ensure your claim has the best chances of
success.  It does not matter that the exposure occurred many years
ago or that the company where you were exposed no longer exists.
Claims can still be brought and specialist asbestos lawyers can
advise you further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IMP Founder to Be Honored By Meso Foundation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hall of the Mesothelioma Center reports that Dr. David
Sugarbaker will be honored with the Pioneer Award by the Meso
Foundation for his lifetime work in mesothelioma research and
treatment development.

Considered one of the world's leading experts on mesothelioma, Dr.
Sugarbaker serves as the Chief Division of Thoracic Surgery, and
as the founder and Director of the International Mesothelioma
Program (IMP) at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

The Meso Foundation presents awards to individuals who contribute
to research and advocacy for mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma affects nearly 3,000 Americans annually and is
primarily caused by asbestos exposure.  Traditional treatment
options for mesothelioma cancer include chemotherapy, radiation
therapy and surgery.

The Pioneer Award will be presented at the foundation's annual
symposium on July 12-13 in Washington D.C.

Additional notable guests of the event include Raja Flores, MD,
Stephen Hahn, MD, Raffit Hassan, MD, Robert Kratzke, MD, Harvey
Pass, MD, Daniel Sterman, MD and Robert Taub, MD, PhD, in addition
to others.

Sugarbaker has become an outspoken advocate for the use of a
surgical procedure known as extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP).
This is serious surgery option involves removing the lung,
diaphragm or chest cavity lining, with the goal of removing tumors
and reducing the spread of cancerous cells.

His work has allowed some mesothelioma patients to live better
lives.

The Meso Foundation, also known as known as the Mesothelioma
Applied Research Foundation, defined the doctor's success through
more than the novel treatment approaches, but also through his
contributions to the medical community in peer-reviewed journals.

"He has trained many young surgeons and has inspired countless
others to remain committed to mesothelioma research and
treatment," the foundation said in its announcement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Knightstone Assures Hazmat Container Is Secured
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Franklin of the Weston Mercury reports that residents in
Hans Price Close were informed on June 8 by Knightstone Housing
that a skip would be placed in parking spaces at the site while
Somer Housing did work on a home in Alfred Street.

But they were surprised when instead of a skip a large asbestos
container was left unlocked outside their homes.

Moving to ease their concerns, Knightstone Housing has assured
residents that the container was only unlocked before the
hazardous waste was put into it, and that since the material had
been put inside it has been secured at all times.

Mark Beard, director of operations at Knightstone said: "We are
sorry for any distress caused to residents.

"We let our residents know as soon as we were aware that Somer
Housing would be carrying out this work and using our car park.

"We have spoken to Somer Housing, which has assured us that it is
using a specialist licensed asbestos contractor to remove asbestos
from the site.

"The contractor assured Somer that the skip is only unlocked when
empty and locked when materials are put into it.

"Somer carried out a site audit on June 13 and is happy that the
contractors meet all health and safety requirements."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Reaches Out to Husband's Peers for Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
HeraldScotland.com reports that the widow of a university
laboratory research technician who died of an asbestos-related
cancer is appealing for her late husband's former colleagues to
come forward with information to help in her battle for justice.

Robert Burns was 75 when he died of mesothelioma in September
2010.  His widow, Jane Burns, has asked law firm Irwin Mitchell to
help investigate.

Mr. Burns' exposure to asbestos dust is believed to have occurred
at several universities where he worked from 1951 to 1984.

As a laboratory research technician, he was involved in making
equipment for students' research projects.

He worked at the University of St. Andrews between 1951 and 1955,
then Queens College in Dundee from 1957 to 1961, and Gatty Marine
Research Laboratories from 1961 until 1965.

Mr. Burns then worked at the University of Aston in Birmingham
until 1984.

Jane said: "I hope that anyone with any information about the
working conditions in the university labs or who knew and worked
with Robert will get in touch."

Irwin Mitchell can be contacted on 0191 279 0104.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Stops Work at Barangaroo Development, Again
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that work has been halted
for a second time at Sydney's Barangaroo high-rise development
because of fears about asbestos.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) said
about 40 people digging foundations at the southern part of the
harbourside construction site walked off the job about noon (AEST)
on Monday, June 25.

The union said an amount of crumbled asbestos, that may have been
driven over by trucks or other heavy vehicles, was discovered
earlier in the day.

"We've found significant amounts in areas where vehicles and
trucks and machinery have gone over the top of it," CFMEU
spokesman Rob Kera told AAP.

"A lot of it is just sitting there on the surface."

Work at that part of the site will not resume on Monday and a
meeting of all staff will be held at 7 a.m. (AEST) on Tuesday,
June 26, to update the situation, Mr. Kera said.

About 150 workers were removed from the Barangaroo site in April
after the CFMEU said testing revealed the area was contaminated by
toxic chemicals, including asbestos and high levels of lead.

The NSW government has announced that Westpac and financial
services firm KPMG had signed agreements to occupy the two towers
being built at Barangaroo from 2015 or 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: A Call to Lawmakers to Give EPA True Power
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg editors in an article posted at Bloomberg View take up
the state of chemical regulation in the U.S.  According to the
article:

"Imagine if government officials knew that certain chemicals were
hazardous enough to cause health problems as serious as cancer and
neurological defects, yet were largely powerless to restrict them.

That, in a nutshell, is the state of chemical regulation in the
U.S.  On paper, the Environmental Protection Agency has the
authority to regulate or ban toxic substances.  In practice, the
agency faces so many hurdles that it hasn't tried to do so since
it made an ill-fated run at asbestos in 1991.

More than two dozen states are nobly trying to fill the regulatory
void.  But Washington cannot abdicate its responsibility to
protect public health.  U.S. lawmakers should move swiftly to give
the EPA true power to assess and regulate risky chemicals.

The agency's inadequate oversight of flame retardants, as revealed
in a recent series of articles in the Chicago Tribune, illustrates
the perils of weak federal rules.  These chemicals are used in
everything from couch cushions to televisions to airplanes,
ostensibly to lower the risk of fire.  However, the flame
retardants most often used in such products are largely
ineffective.  They exist mainly because the chemical industry has
pushed them aggressively.

Some of these chemicals are known carcinogens.  Others have been
shown to hinder reproduction or to promote obesity, anxiety and
behavioral problems.  For good reason, they have raised concerns
among federal regulators.  Yet they remain ubiquitous.  It has
been nearly 40 years since makers of children's pajamas stopped
using a flame retardant known as chlorinated tris because of
evidence that it caused cancer, yet the chemical can still be
found in highchairs, car seats, nursing pillows and other
polyurethane-foam-filled baby gear.

Flame retardants are showing up in the environment as well --
studies have found concentrations of brominated compounds in the
air near the Great Lakes and in wildlife across the U.S. American
babies are now born with the world's highest recorded levels of
flame retardants in their bodies.

What keeps federal regulators from acting are weaknesses in the
Toxic Substances Control Act: When it passed, in 1976, more than
62,000 chemicals, including several flame retardants, were
grandfathered in, allowing them to avoid scrutiny.  And, unlike
drug manufacturers, chemical companies aren't required to submit
health and safety data before marketing a new product.  If
concerns are raised about a chemical, the onus is on the EPA to
prove it poses an unreasonable risk before it can restrict
production or use.  The burden is so great that the agency has
been able to require testing for only about 200 of the more than
80,000 chemicals in its inventory.

When the EPA tried to ban asbestos more than 20 years ago, it
assembled 45,000 pages of data documenting how exposure to the
substance can damage lung tissue.  Nevertheless, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned the ban.

This year, the EPA identified 83 "chemicals of concern," including
several flame retardants, for which it plans to begin risk
assessments in 2013.

Protecting public health shouldn't be this hard.  When it comes to
chemical safety, Congress should shift the burden of proof from
regulators to manufacturers.  Substances already in use should not
automatically be considered safe.

The Safe Chemicals Act, which was introduced in Congress in 2011,
would require companies to submit to the EPA a minimum amount of
health and safety data for each chemical they produce, and would
ease the agency's burden to collect any additional information it
needs.  The EPA would have to classify chemicals by risk and take
immediate action to restrict the most dangerous ones.

Given the fractured state of affairs in Washington, states'
efforts to fill the policy vacuum are welcome.  New York and New
Jersey, among many others, have been discussing efforts to
restrict or ban the use of certain flame retardants.  Recently,
California Governor Jerry Brown urged tougher regulations in his
state.

But certain chemicals are known to be dangerous to public health
in every state.  In not stepping in to restrict their production
and use, the federal government abandons its responsibility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada's Effort to Aid Chrysotile Industry Bared
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Schmidt and Mike De Souza of Postmedia News report that the
federal government acknowledged years ago that the dangers of
chrysotile asbestos warranted limits on its export -- but still
fought against international restrictions over the past decade --
internal records show.

The memorandum to Environment Minister Peter Kent, obtained by
Postmedia News under access to information, states the scientific
panel for the UN's Rotterdam Convention was on solid ground in
2002 when it first proposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos, a
known carcinogen mined in Quebec, as a hazardous material on Annex
III of the convention.

Materials listed on this annex require Prior Informed Consent
(PIC) -- meaning that before countries export listed goods, they
must inform importers of the risks and precautionary measures for
safe handling, to which importers must consent.  Because the
convention operates by consensus, any one country can block a
listing simply by objecting.

"Since 2002, chrysotile has been proposed four times for addition
to the PIC Procedure of the Rotterdam Convention.  This decision
requires the consensus of the Parties.  At previous meetings and
again last June, Canada acknowledged that all criteria for the
addition of chrysotile asbestos to the Convention have been met
but opposed its addition," states the briefing note, dated last
fall.

The revelation of Canada's sustained effort to block the listing
of chrysotile asbestos despite its acceptance of the scientific
evidence behind the proposal comes as the struggling Quebec
industry tries to revive itself with government support.

Operations at the last two mines were suspended last November in
the Quebec towns of Thetford Mines and Asbestos.  A consortium in
Asbestos is in negotiations with the Quebec government for a $58-
million loan guarantee to open an underground mine at the Jeffrey
Mine and export the mineral to developing countries.

New Democratic MP Pat Martin, a longtime critic of the asbestos
industry and a former miner himself, said the briefing note blows
open Canada's public positions on asbestos.

The Conservative government has said repeatedly that its
opposition to the Rotterdam listing, most recently articulated at
the June 2011 convention meeting, is consistent with Canada's 30-
year old policy of promoting the safe and controlled use of
chrysotile.

"They've ignored the scientists.  They didn't just deny the
science.  They acknowledged it but yet ignored it.  That is
unforgivable, in my view," Martin said Monday, June 25.

"They've put commercial and political interests ahead of
scientific interests, and in doing, compromised and undermined the
whole purpose and intent of the convention," he added, singling
out the Conservative government's Quebec Lieutenant, Christian
Paradis, who represents a riding at the heart of Quebec's asbestos
mining region.

"Stephen Harper has almost no support in Quebec and one of his
only seats is the biggest cheerleader for asbestos," said Martin.

The ministerial memo was prepared by Deputy Environment Minister
Paul Boothe and Associate Deputy Environment Minister Andrea Lyon
after Health Canada informed the department it was set to release
a draft report on the risks posed to Canadian workers and the
general population from exposure to chrysotile.

The release of the report, triggered by an access to information
request, "states that chrysotile deposits are often contaminated
with tremolite."  And tremolite, "a more potent carcinogen than
chrysotile for mesothelioma and it is possibly a more potent
carcinogen for lung cancer," is one of five forms of asbestos
listed on Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, the memo states.

Previously released records from Health Canada show the department
challenged the government's public stance on the Rotterdam listing
and safe use.

"HC's preferred position would be to list (the substance under the
treaty) as this is consistent with controlled use -- i.e. let
people know about the substance so they have the information they
need, (through) prior informed consent, to ensure they handle and
use the substance correctly," wrote Paul Glover, an assistant
deputy minister at Health Canada, in an internal email, dated
Aug. 15, 2006.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manassas Historic Home Set for Abatement in July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Gibson of The Manassas Patch reports that the Manassas City
Council has set an agenda item during its June 25 council meeting
to budget and appropriate funds to conduct an asbestos inspection
at 9300 Prescott Ave. -- the first step in the demolition of the
abandoned historic home at one of the city's 'gateway' entrances
to Old Town.

The move came after the property's owner did not comply with a
motion passed by the City Council on Feb. 27, 2012, to secure or
repair the porch, which was deemed unsafe, in 30 days, and to
secure or repair the entire house in 90 days.

City documents show officials have made attempts to contact the
owners about the passing deadlines outlined in the motion with no
reply.  City staff did meet with the owner and an engineer at the
property to conduct an assessment in late March, but the city has
yet to receive any permit applications for work to be done on the
property, documents show.  The home's owner also came by city hall
on June 6 to receive additional information on the process, but
since then no permit applications have been received.

According to city documents, the owner requested access to the
home on at least two occasions to "clean" and "paint" but was
denied due to the property's "unsafe condition."

City staff also opened the house at the request of Bank of America
(BOA) representatives for the purpose of inspection in early May,
but there's been no communication from the bank since.  BOA has
held the mortgage on the building since July.  City officials
decided to allow the bank to proceed with the foreclosure process
and repair it or sell it, but little has been done to secure the
building.

Once again, the city said it plans on notifying the property
owner's about the next step, which would be to begin the
demolition process with an asbestos inspection.

City officials call the decision to demolish the house an
"unwanted" one but say the home's owners have left them no choice.

"This was no rush to judgment," Council Member Steve Randolph
said.  "The city has tried go the extra miles to save the historic
property."

Randolph said the first violation issued on the property was
Feb. 21 1996.  The home meets the state's requirements of blight
abatement and therefore the city has the legal right to demolish
all or some of the home, according to Manassas City Attorney
Martin Crim.

Tentative Demolition Timeline:

July 2012: Asbestos inspection
August 2012: Bidding process for demolition
September 2012: Demolition


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Site Operational Unless Risk Is Confirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Department of Mines and Petroleum is
investigating asbestos contamination in the Pilbara.

Rio Tinto has confirmed brown asbestos was found last month at its
West Angeles mine site.  The fibers were identified in material
which was brought in from the Holcim quarry in Newman as landfill.

A Rio Tinto spokeswoman says exposure levels were below the
occupational exposure limit and employees were immediately
informed.

The Holcim quarry has voluntarily shut down its operations.

The department says an initial report on asbestos at West Angeles
is due on June 28.

BHP Billiton has suspended operations at its Jimblebar mine near
Meekatharra amid allegations its workers could have been exposed
to asbestos.  The company's director of mines safety has called an
urgent meeting of key industry players.

A BHP spokesman says tests are ongoing and the company will not
put any workers in danger.

The CFMEU's safety officer Steve McCann says he has spent three
days investigating asbestos contamination at the Jimblebar site,
after calls from several concerned workers.  The union says
Jimblebar has also sourced material from the Holcim quarry.

Mr. McCann says he is concerned that workers at the BHP site could
suffer exposure whilst the investigations continue there.

"The mine itself has been made aware; their position on the
subject was until they receive confirmation from further testing,
they were going to continue to use this," he said.

"Now that borders on negligence as far as I'm concerned.

"Even the risk of contamination or exposure to the workers on that
site, they should at least stop production until such time as they
have confirmation that the material they're using is safe."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMWU Plans to Set Up National Asbestos Authority
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Willingham at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that
unions will push for the establishment of a National Asbestos
Authority to protect people and to remove asbestos from homes and
public and commercial buildings.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union acting national
secretary, Paul Bastian, will meet the Prime Minister, Julia
Gillard, and the Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, this
afternoon to push the case.  He is a lifelong campaigner against
asbestos.

Mr. Bastian says more Australians have died from exposure to
asbestos than in World War II.

"Surely we've had enough people die now, enough heart-wrenching
diseases and enough legal acknowledgment that this must stop," he
said.

The union's solution is a federally funded authority to "find,
educate, remove and protect people from the dangers of asbestos".

The authority would educate and raise awareness within the
community of the existence of asbestos in private homes,
businesses and public buildings.

"As part of the authority, an urgent audit and plan for the
removal of asbestos from all government premises is required.

"State governments regularly report low levels of compliance with
asbestos regulations and we call on the federal government to
treat its removal as a national issue of critical importance -
including asbestos in schools."

Mr. Shorten's spokesman said it was a critical issue for the
government.  "Which is why we commissioned the asbestos management
review -- the minister and the government look forward to
receiving the report's recommendations," he said.

The Herald understands the review will be handed to the government
before the end of the month and is likely to recommend some form
of national authority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts State Low Risk Level At Parliament House
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Johnson of ABC News reports that consultants have
assessed the asbestos find at Parliament House in Adelaide and
concluded there is little health risk.

Traces of asbestos have been found in dust and paint on an awning
in the ceiling of the House of Assembly.

The chamber has been closed and a clean-up will be done over the
next two months.

House of Assembly Clerk, Malcolm Lehman, said parliamentary staff
had been advised there was no real concern of a risk to health.

"We've been advised consistently since asbestos was identified
that the risk is slight," he said.

The briefing . . . members and staff have just received suggests
that that's consistent advice."

He was doubtful there was asbestos anywhere else in Parliament
House.

"Most of the other parts of the House of Assembly chamber have
been subject to renovation over the years and this plenum area
above the ceiling is probably the last area which has been touched
or upgraded in any way," he said.

Lower house proceedings have been taking place in the Legislative
Council chamber.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Violations Found in Dunwoody School Renovation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kiggins of CBS Atlanta News reports that a construction
project at a local school has upset neighbors.  They said workers
at the Dunwoody High School renovation didn't properly dispose of
asbestos -- and they're worried for their children's health.

The problem is the dumpster.  The Environmental Protection Agency
told CBS Atlanta News it's supposed to be secured with a fence
surrounding it so nobody can gain access to the debris.

"What is it you're doing this afternoon?" asked CBS Atlanta News
reporter Steve Kiggins.

"That's none of your business," replied an unidentified
contractor.

"It actually is my business," answered Kiggins.

Workers with Kidd and Associates Environmental Contractors dodged
Tough Questions after a concerned neighbor said hazardous
materials weren't properly handled.

"Obviously they need to get rid of the asbestos from the school
and there's OSHA regulations and ways to do it properly," said
concerned neighbor Joe Hirsch.  "It doesn't appear that's what
they're doing."

Hirsch snapped photographs of contractors throwing away
construction debris into a dumpster at Dunwoody high in DeKalb
County.  Renovations at the school are almost complete, but the
way asbestos floor tiles are being handled worries Hirsch.

"You can see them just taking shovel-fulls and throwing the debris
on top of the dumpster, and it's just blowing around," Hirsch
said.

The dumpster sits in the high school parking lot right next to
where a school bus drops children off after day camp.

"I'm not an expert on asbestos but I do know there should be some
sort of warning label, there's children playing here," Hirsch
said.

Early Tuesday afternoon (June 26) there weren't any warning labels
on the dumpster, but around 7 p.m. red tape magically appeared --
so we asked the contractors Tough Questions.

"It's not asbestos, sir.  It's just floor tiles," asserted the
unidentified contractor.

"The school district says it's asbestos," replied Kiggins.

"It's just floor tile," replied the contractor.

"You're saying it's not asbestos?" asked Kiggins.

"It can be asbestos, but it's not a high quality," said the
contractor.

"You just told me it wasn't asbestos.  So you tell me, are you
lying or is the school district?" asked Kiggins

The contractor didn't respond.

The school district said their tests show there's no asbestos
danger, but the EPA will be back on site to continue their
investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TN Landfill Affirms Authority to Accept Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that
for residents in Bradley County, Tenn., a photograph raised some
disturbing questions.

The photograph, taken by an anonymous Bradley County resident and
sent to the local newspaper, Cleveland Daily Banner, clearly shows
asbestos being dumped at the Bradley County landfill.

The Bradley County landfill, managed by Cleveland-based Santek
Environmental, is allowed to accept and dispose of asbestos.
According to Cheryl Dunson, a spokesperson for Santek
Environmental, accepting asbestos is not only allowed at the site
but also highly regulated by the state.

The landfill also accepts asbestos from any person and from any
site.  However, unregulated dumping of asbestos is illegal and
anyone in possession of asbestos must have been approved by the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to both move
the asbestos to the landfill and to dump it.

Sanctioned by the state, the Bradley County landfill accepts
friable and non-friable asbestos.  Friable asbestos is less common
today as it was in the heyday of the asbestos manufacturing boom.
Asbestos, in the friable form, is the most deadly and dangerous to
humans.  These loose asbestos fibers are far easier to inhale than
its counterpart, non-friable asbestos.  With non-friable asbestos,
the toxin is typically encased in another material such as cement
where it keeps the asbestos intact.

The Bradley County landfill ensures that both the less frequent
friable asbestos and non-friable asbestos are handled carefully
and disposed of in a manner that eliminates contamination or
health risks.  Friable asbestos must be contained in bags prior to
coming to the landfill.  When it is known that asbestos is
arriving, landfill employees dig a hole.

Asbestos is not only a set of naturally occurring minerals but a
known carcinogen causing a litany of cancers including malignant
mesothelioma cancer, lung cancer and asbestosis.

The Bradley County landfill is one of 19 landfills with "blanket
approval" by the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation to accept friable asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delegate Lobbies Action to Reduce ARD Death Toll
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Hall of ABC News reports that a group made up of Paul
Bastian, the national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union, Serafina Salucci, an asbestos disease sufferer, and
her lawyer were scheduled to meet senior politicians on June 27.

They hope to convince the Prime Minister that it's easy and
inexpensive to reduce the asbestos-related death toll.

Mr. Bastian said Australia's asbestos problem is in many ways just
beginning because at least one in three houses built in Australia
between the end of World War Two and 1987 contain some form of
asbestos.  And that's not including commercial property.

He stated that the exposure rate is not expected to peak until
2030.

"During that time we can expect to see another 40,000 people
contract an asbestos related disease.  And out of those, on
average if we take the current figures, 13,000 of them will
contract a fatal mesothelioma," Mr. Bastian said.

Serafina Salucci is 42 years old.  She's a mother of four and
she's battling mesothelioma.  She was diagnosed with the asbestos
related cancer five years ago.

"Growing up, as a child, there was a lot of fibro around.  My
father used it at home to build certain things.  He built a fibro
garage when I was about seven, in the backyard," Ms. Salucci
related.

Ms. Salucci is part of what's been dubbed the third wave of
asbestos disease sufferers -- people who've never worked in the
mining or manufacture of asbestos.

Paul Bastian and Serafina Salucci are part of a delegation to
lobby senior politicians for urgent action.

They believe the timing is crucial.  The Government's Asbestos
Management Review Committee will hand in its findings in the same
week.  And the delegates hope it will back a plan proposed by the
ACTU.

                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *