---

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

            Friday, September 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 193

                             Headlines

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Arkansas
ADVOCAT INC: Faces ERISA-Violations Suits in Tenn. and Arkansas
ADVOCAT INC: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Covington Proposals
AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP: Unit Faces Class Action Suit in Australia
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Remains Stayed in West Va.

ASTRAZENECA AB: Sued Over Delayed Release of Generic Nexium
BRIGHTPOINT INC: Faces Suits Over Proposed Ingram Micro Merger
CANADA: Liberals Seek Breakdown of Class Action Legal Costs
CENTENE CORP: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
DYNEX CAPITAL: Expects Filing of Appeal in Penn. Suit vs. GLS

DYNEX CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Real Estate Owners' Suit
EMCORE CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
FALCON TRADING: Recalls Products With Peanuts From Sunland Inc.
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Judge Tosses Fraud Claim vs. Senior Executive
FREDDIE MAC: St. Cloud-Area Counties May Join Class Action

GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Products Have No Chocolate, Suit Claims
GODADDY.COM: Sued Over False Claims on Uptime Guarantee
GOVGUAM: Plaintiffs Seek Payment of Tax Refunds Within 6 Mos.
HANCOCK HOLDING: Awaits Final Okay of "LaCour" Suit Settlement
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Improperly-Withheld Gratuities

INDIANA: Social Services Agency Sued for Ending Food Allowance
JAPAN: Chinese Victims' Class Suit Over Chemical Weapons Rejected
LAKE COUNTY, FL: Faces Class Action Over Fire-Assessment Fees
LES HALLES: Workers File Class Action Over Tip Pool
LG DISPLAY: Oral Argument in Miss. LCD Price Fixing Suit in Oct. 5

MANNKIND CORP: December 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NATIONAL WESTERN: Trial in Deferred Annuities Suit on Nov. 5
NEW YORK: Must Face Suit Over Delayed Medicaid Fair Hearings
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Action Over Leaf Vehicle Design Defect
NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois

PERRIGO: Sued Over Reformulated Hypothyroidism Drug
PNC FINANCIAL: Bank to Settle Three Overdraft Fee Suits for $90MM
PNC FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Suit Over Interchange Fees
PRESIDENTIAL LIFE: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in New York
RAYMOND JAMES: Unit Faces Class Suits Over Certain Mutual Funds

SEQWATER: State Report Backs Wivenhoe Dam Engineer's Actions
SNC LAVALIN: Judge Certifies Shareholder Class Action
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 12T Bikes Due to Fall & Injury Risks
SUNLAND INC: Recalls Almond, Cashew, Tahini and Peanut Products
UNITED BANKSHARES: Still Defends Suits Over Overdraft Practices

URALKALI: To Pay $12.75MM to Settle Part in U.S. Antitrust Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax on Coupons
WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Claims Cert. Bid Ruling in Securities Suit
WALTER ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Alabama
WALTER ENERGY: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Moore" Suit

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. Court Won't Dismiss Suit v. Dana Kepner
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Refuses to Consolidate Two Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Bars Wrongful Death Suit vs. SSW Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Certainteed Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Former Candy Store Starts Oct. 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McAllen High School Notifies Parents of Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison Case Settled as Attorneys Completed Jury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Finance Committee to Study Chicopee Library Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Says Fennell Lawsuit "Forum Shopping"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Navy Files $75,000 Suit v. 30 Companies

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assisting Policemen Exposed to Fibro During Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Handlers at Old Thatcher Plant to Be Sentenced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Temporarily Closes Mackay Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Victim's Daughter Organizes Fund Raiser
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fake Specialist Gets Suspended Jail Sentence

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Republican Senator Calls Warren a "Hired Gun"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delton Board Approves East Adam St. Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farmer Warned for Moving Dumped Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burglers Have To Be Decontaminated After Break In
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Law Firm Lists Most At-Risk Occupations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Immunotherapy Gets $104 Million
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Future of Asbestos Town Discussed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From UN Headquarters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Continues to Monitor Grace Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Had $449.8M Gross Loss Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $67.8MM Gross Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Still Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Accrued $239MM for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Still Defends Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has Reserves for Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 7,973 Open Claims End June
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Continues to Seek Dismissal of Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Still Defends 287 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Plans to File Petition for Certiorari
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Still Defends Exposure Suits


                          *********

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against Advocat
Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility").  The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the residents of the Facility over the past five
years.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet
been certified by the court as a class action.  The Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


ADVOCAT INC: Faces ERISA-Violations Suits in Tenn. and Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. is facing two purported collective actions alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Two purported collective action complaints have been filed in
Tennessee and Arkansas against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries.  The complaints allege that the defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The lawsuits remain in early
stages and have not yet been certified by the courts as collective
actions.  The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


ADVOCAT INC: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Covington Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. is facing a stockholder class action lawsuit over its
response to certain expressions of interest in a potential
strategic transaction from Covington Investments, LLC, according
to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On May 16, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, against the Company's Board of Directors.  This action
alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties
to stockholders related to its response to certain expressions of
interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington
Investments, LLC ("Covington").  The complaint asserts that the
Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately consider
Covington's proposals.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages
and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.


AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP: Unit Faces Class Action Suit in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of AECOM Technology Corporation is facing a class
action lawsuit and other lawsuits in Australia, according to the
Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

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

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include
approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM
Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.
Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a
lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012,
claiming damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's
role in connection with the traffic forecast.  WestLB, one of the
lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of
Australia on May 18, 2012.  Additionally, Centerbridge Credit
Partners (and a number of related entities) and Midtown
Acquisitions (and a number of related entities), both claiming to
be assignees of certain other lending banks, filed their own
proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia on May 16, 2012.
None of the lawsuits specify the amount of damages sought and the
damages sought by WestLB, Centerbridge Credit Partners and Midtown
Acquisitions are duplicative of damages already included in the
receivers' claim.

AECOM Australia says it intends to vigorously defend the claims
brought against it.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Remains Stayed in West Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas Partners, L.P.'s general partner, AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
(the "General Partner"), is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
UGI Corporation ("UGI").  AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP")
is the Company's principal operating subsidiary.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of
UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their
insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the
Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy.  The Court has not certified the
class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution
of a separate, but related class action lawsuit filed against
AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in fiscal
2011.  The Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in
this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded limited partnership
that conducts a national propane distribution business through its
principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and prior to
its merger with AmeriGas OLP on October 1, 2010, AmeriGas OLP's
subsidiary, AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.


ASTRAZENECA AB: Sued Over Delayed Release of Generic Nexium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AstraZeneca paid off Teva
Pharmaceuticals and other drugmakers to delay the release of
generic version of Nexium, a class claims in federal court.

A copy of the Complaint in International Union of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District No. 15 Health Fund v. AstraZeneca AB,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 5491 in Case No.
33-av-00001 on Sept. 21, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/25/AstraZenecaNJ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          Douglas J. Bench, Jr., Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY, P.C.
          101 East Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com
                  bench@gskplaw.com

               - and -

          John D. Zaremba, Esq.
          ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC
          40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 380-6700


BRIGHTPOINT INC: Faces Suits Over Proposed Ingram Micro Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brightpoint, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits over its
proposed merger with an Ingram Micro Inc. subsidiary, according to
the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On June 29, 2012, Brightpoint, Inc., Ingram Micro Inc., (Ingram
Micro) and Beacon Sub, Inc., (Merger Sub), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) providing for
the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the Merger),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Ingram Micro.

BrightPoint has received notice of the filing of two putative
class action complaints commenced in the District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.  In the first action, the plaintiff
sued BrightPoint, its directors, Ingram Micro and Merger Sub for
alleged violations of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the alleged omission of certain
information contained in the preliminary proxy statement.  In the
second action, two plaintiffs sued BrightPoint and its directors
alleging the same federal securities claims and asserting that
BrightPoint's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to conduct a fair process for the sale of
BrightPoint and accepting a purchase price that was too low.
These plaintiffs also allege that BrightPoint aided and abetted
the directors' purported breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs in both putative class actions seek, among other
things, monetary damages, injunctive relief (including enjoining
the merger), and attorneys' and other fees and expenses.  The
Company has also received a letter on behalf of a BrightPoint
shareholder that requests BrightPoint incorporate certain
disclosures relating to the Merger into the definitive proxy
statement.


CANADA: Liberals Seek Breakdown of Class Action Legal Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
Harper government spent $750,462 in legal fees fighting veterans
over the clawback of military pensions, documents tabled in
Parliament show.

Federal Liberals have been demanding to see a breakdown of
Ottawa's legal costs in the class-action lawsuit launched by
veterans advocate Dennis Manuge, of Halifax.

The response was tabled in Parliament, but Justice Minister
Rob Nicholson refused to release an itemized count, invoking
solicitor-client privilege.

Instead, he released a global amount for the lawsuit, which has
been dragging its way through the courts since March 2007.

Liberal veterans critic Sean Casey described the legal bill as an
"obscene waste of taxpayers' money."

In abandoning the legal fight, the government appointed Stephen
Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia, to
lead negotiations with Mr. Manuge's legal team to arrive at a
settlement, including retroactive payments.

The settlement could run as high as $600 million, depending upon
how many years back the federal compensation plan will go, say
internal government estimates.

Mr. Casey said that given the amount of money at stake, he could
see the government fighting it tooth and nail -- if it had a
strong case.

"The court didn't see any merit; the court didn't equivocate.  The
court slammed them," he said.

"They had a weak case from the get-go and it was absolutely
irresponsible.  The responsible thing for them to do was not to
force litigation, but to sit down when this problem reared its
ugly head and come to a negotiated settlement."

In siding with veterans last May, Judge Robert Barnes
"unreservedly" rejected the government's arguments.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Veterans Affairs Minister
Steven Blaney announced in June the government would not appeal a
Federal Court of Canada ruling that rejected clawbacks from the
pensions of disabled veterans.

The class-action lawsuit involved Manuge and 4,500 other disabled
veterans whose long-term disability benefits were reduced by the
amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they
receive.

The ex-soldiers argued it was unfair and unjust to treat pain and
suffering awards as income.

Mr. MacKay ordered the clawback to end in July, but there are
still some veterans who face the deduction.

Ex-soldiers whose additional awards and payments exceed the limit
of 75 per cent of their military salary -- often those who were
most severely injured -- say they're still not being treated
fairly.

Those veterans with the most grievous injuries are entitled to
receive the maximum benefit, particularly since many can't work,
advocates have said.


CENTENE CORP: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
In June 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Federal
Court against Centene Corporation and three of its executives.

The Company believes that the case was without merit and intended
to vigorously defend its position.  On Sept. 21, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice as to all
claims and defendants.

Centene Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, is a multi-line
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and related services
to the rising number of under-insured and uninsured individuals.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Expects Filing of Appeal in Penn. Suit vs. GLS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. is expecting plaintiffs in a 1997 class action
lawsuit filed against GLS Capital, Inc. ("GLS") in Pennsylvania to
take an appeal from the dismissal of their claims, according to
the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS, and the County of
Allegheny, Pennsylvania ("Allegheny County") are defendants in a
class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Court").  Between 1995 and
1997, GLS purchased from Allegheny County delinquent property tax
receivables for properties located in the county.  The plaintiffs
in this matter have alleged that GLS improperly recovered or
sought recovery for certain fees, costs, interest, and attorneys'
fees and expenses in connection with GLS' collection of the
property tax receivables.  The Court granted class action status
in this matter in August 2007.  In February 2011, as a result of
motions filed by GLS, the Court refined the class to include only
owners of real estate in Allegheny County who paid an attorneys'
fee between 1996 and 2003 in connection with the forced collection
of delinquent property tax receivables by GLS (generally through
the initiation of a foreclosure action).  As a result, the Court
dismissed certain claims against GLS and narrowed the issues being
litigated to whether attorneys' fees and related expenses charged
by GLS in connection with the collection of the receivables were
reasonable.  Such attorneys' fees and related expenses were
assessed by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to prevailing
Allegheny County ordinance.  On April 23, 2012, as a result of a
petition to discontinue filed by the plaintiffs, the Court
dismissed the remaining claims against GLS.  The claims made by
plaintiff that can be appealed include the legality of charging
and recovering attorneys' fees and lien revival and filing costs
from the class members.  Plaintiff has not yet appealed the
Court's ruling but the Company expects them to do so. Plaintiffs
have not enumerated their damages in this matter.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Real Estate Owners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiary
against a class action lawsuit brought by owners of real estate in
Allegheny County, according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company, its subsidiary GLS Capital, Inc. ("GLS"), and
Allegheny County are named defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in June 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The proposed class in this action
consists of owners of real estate in Allegheny County whose
property is or has been subject to a tax lien filed by Allegheny
County that Allegheny County either retained or sold to GLS and
who were billed by Allegheny County or GLS for attorneys' fees,
interest, or prothonotary fees and who sustained economic damages
on and after August 14, 2003, in connection with attempts to
collect delinquent real estate taxes.  The putative class
allegations are that Allegheny County, GLS, and the Company
violated the class's constitutional due process rights in
connection with delinquent tax collection efforts.  There are also
allegations that amounts recovered from the class by GLS and/or
Allegheny County are an unconstitutional taking of private
property.  The claims against the Company are solely based upon
its ownership of GLS.  The complaint requests that the Court order
GLS to account for the amounts alleged to have been collected in
violation of the putative class members' rights and create a
constructive trust for the return of such amounts to members of
the purported class.  The same class previously filed
substantially the same lawsuit in 2004 against GLS and Allegheny
County, and GLS's Motion for Summary Judgment is pending in that
action.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


EMCORE CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in New
Mexico, according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "Prissert
Class Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.). The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the
Company's Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the
Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses
associated with the maintenance of the action.  On or about
February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
(Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133
(D.N.M.)) (the "Mueller Class Action"), together with the Prissert
Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same
defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on
substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing
substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the
same relief.

On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating
both the Prissert and Mueller class actions into one consolidated
proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a
lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the
court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as
lead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's
motion to appoint lead counsel.  On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a
renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval
of its selection of counsel.  IBEW filed a renewed motion for
appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011, which the Company did not
oppose.  By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointed
counsel to act on behalf of the purported class.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations of the Class Actions.


FALCON TRADING: Recalls Products With Peanuts From Sunland Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon Trading Company, Inc./SunRidge Farms of Royal Oaks,
California, announced that it has taken the precautionary measure
of voluntarily recalling the three bulk items mentioned below.

The product contains peanut butter supplied by Sunland, Inc.
Sunland, Inc. initiated a voluntary recall of all peanut butter
products manufactured between May 1, 2012, and September 24, 2012,
"because the products may have the potential to be contaminated
with salmonella."  Salmonella is an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Please
visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site at
http://www.cdc.gov/.

Falcon Trading Company/SunRidge Farms is committed to producing
only the highest quality products, and the Company's top priority
is the safety of its customers.  For this reason the Company is
issuing this voluntary recall as a precautionary measure.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the SunRidge
Farms recalled product and no other SunRidge Farms products are
being recalled at this time.

Consumers who have purchased the items mentioned below should
return it to the retail store where they purchased it for a full
refund.  If they have any questions, they should call Falcon
Trading Company's customer service at 1-831-786-7000.

RE: Sunridge Farms - Energy Nuggets

Item Code    UPC Code        Item Description       Pack Size
---------    --------        ----------------       ---------
   022160     086700221600    Sunridge Candy -       10 lb Case
                              Energy Nuggets
Case Quantity: 852 Cases

Lot Codes: 2351244; 2361244; 2411244; 2421244; 1851217;
            1871217; 1881817; 1911217; 1921217; 1931217;
            1941217; 1951217

RE: Sunridge Farms - Peanut Butter Power Chews

Item Code    UPC Code        Item Description       Pack Size
---------    --------        ----------------       ---------
   500200     086700902004    Sunridge Candy -       10 lb Case
                              Peanut Butter
                              Power Chews

Case Quantity: 1846 Cases

Lot Codes: 2511230; 2541230; 2551230; 2561230; 2361214;
            2371214; 2401214; 2211283; 2221283; 2271283;
            2281283; 2011212; 2021212; 2051212; 2061212;
            2071212; 2081212; 1711269; 1721269; 1731269;
            1741269; 1771269; 1781269

RE: Sunridge Farms - Treasure Trove Mix

Item Code    UPC Code        Item Description       Pack Size
---------    --------        ----------------       ---------
   430110     086700301104    Sunridge Snack Mix -   20 lb Case
                              Treasure Trove Mix
Case Quantity: 50 Cases
Lot Codes: 2051213; 2271263


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Judge Tosses Fraud Claim vs. Senior Executive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
Federal National Mortgage Association shareholders failed to prove
that a retired senior executive with the government sponsored
corporation committed securities fraud, a federal judge ruled.

A class of Fannie Mae shareholders led by the Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio sued Fannie and three former senior executives,
including Franklin Raines, in 2004, but U.S. District Judge
Richard Leon granted Mr. Raines' motion for summary judgment,
ruling that the shareholders failed to link him to accounting
irregularities that led to the largest corporate earnings
restatement in U.S. history.

"Sustaining claims for securities fraud requires a showing of
scienter -- either an intent to deceive or an extreme departure
from the standard of ordinary care -- for each individual or
entity claimed to have committed such fraud," explained Judge
Leon.  "Put simply, the securities fraud laws are not a means for
shareholders to recover for all losses, no matter how sizable or
sudden."

The judge found that the class "failed to put forth sufficient
evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Raines had
such an intent."

The class action stems from an Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) investigation that accused Mr. Raines
and his colleagues of knowingly or recklessly engaging in
misconduct detrimental to Fannie Mae.  In 2008, the D.C. Circuit
ruled that the shareholders were unable to collect damages from
the senior officers.

The class claims specifically that Mr. Raines knowingly made false
statements in the company's periodic financial reporting about the
soundness of Fannie Mae's accounting and internal controls, and
that he misled investors about his approval and participation in
earnings management strategies designed to meet quarterly
earnings-per-share targets to maximize bonuses.

"Unfortunately for plaintiffs, they have not established a genuine
issue of material fact as to Raines' alleged scienter," states the
judge.  "There is not only no direct evidence that Raines intended
to deceive Fannie Mae's investors, there is no evidence that he
even knew his statements were false.  Indeed, plaintiffs conceded
these very points at oral arguments."  The judge granted Mr.
Raines' motion and dismissed him from the suit.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in In re Federal National
Mortgage Association Securities, Derivative, and "ERISA"
Litigation, and In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, MDL No.
1668 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/25/Fannie%20Raines.pdf


FREDDIE MAC: St. Cloud-Area Counties May Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirsti Marohn, writing for sctimes.com, reports that St. Cloud-
area counties are hoping to benefit from a class-action lawsuit
against mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for not paying
real estate transfer taxes, costing them thousands of dollars in
lost revenue.

Stearns County commissioners were set to consider on Sept. 25
whether to officially join the lawsuit filed by Hennepin County in
August on behalf of all 87 counties.

It seeks to recover more than $10 million in unpaid deed taxes
from thousands of properties sold by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
since February 2006.  Similar lawsuits have been filed in other
states, including Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina.

Under Minnesota law, counties are required to collect a deed
transfer tax from the property seller when a deed is recorded.
About 97 percent of the tax goes to the state, while the county
keeps 3 percent.

"It's millions of dollars statewide potentially, and easily in the
hundreds of thousands I suspect for Stearns (County)," said Marcus
Miller, head of the civil division in the Stearns County
Attorney's Office.  "As a region, it has a potential for big
dollars."

The two giant firms buy mortgages from other banks and pool them
into investment securities.  After the housing market collapsed in
2007 and foreclosures began to skyrocket, Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae ended up owning thousands of Minnesota properties.

The lawsuit contends that since 2005, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
transferred at least 7,500 deeds in Hennepin County alone.

Stearns, Benton and Sherburne officials are trying to calculate
the number sold in their counties and the financial impact.  On a
$100,000 home, the tax would be $330, Mr. Miller said.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have argued that they are exempt from
paying the tax under their federal charter.  But county attorneys,
including Sherburne County's Kathleen Heaney, argue that they are
publicly traded, for-profit companies and should be required to
follow the same rules as any other financial institution.

"I think they should be treated the same as any other companies
that operate within our borders," she said.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have until Oct. 3 to respond, said
Chuck Laszewski, spokesman for the Hennepin County Attorney's
Office.

All counties are included in the class-action suit unless they opt
out. Sherburne County informally voiced support for the legal
action last week, while Benton County will discuss it Oct. 3.

There's no real financial risk to the counties, Mr. Miller said,
because Hennepin County is only asking for help covering its
expenses if the lawsuit is successful.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Products Have No Chocolate, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Miller, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated v. Ghirardelli Chocolate
Company; and Does 1 through 50, Case No. CGC-12-523375 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 17, 2012) is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for false advertising,
unfair trade practices, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.

The Defendants deceptively informed and led their customers to
believe that they were purchasing, for a premium price, products
containing white chocolate, while failing to adequately disclose
that the products contain no white chocolate, or chocolate of any
kind, Mr. Miller alleges.  He asserts that the Defendants obtained
substantial profits from these deceptive sales.

Mr. Miller is a resident of Auburndale, Florida.  He purchased a
bag of Ghirardelli(R) Chocolate Premium Baking Chips - Classic
White.

Ghirardelli is a California corporation headquartered in San
Leandro, California.  Ghirardelli is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lindt & Sprungli AG.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to Plaintiff.

The Company removed the lawsuit on September 21, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Ghirardelli argues that the removal is
proper because the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,
exclusive of interests and costs.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04936 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  anthony@gutridesafier.com
                  kristen@gutridesafier.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq.
          Deborah K. Barron, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sitter, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: tmayhew@fbm.com
                  dbarron@fbm.com
                  bsitter@fbm.com


GODADDY.COM: Sued Over False Claims on Uptime Guarantee
-------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix NewTimes reports that Scottsdale-based GoDaddy.com was
having a rough time after it experienced some technical
difficulties, which the company had to explain was not due to some
sort of "hack," despite claims to the contrary.

Now that everyone's Web sites are up and running again, the
company has been hit with a class-action lawsuit, over its "99.9%
uptime guarantee."

The lawsuit notes that several pages on Go Daddy's Web site,
including the one where people can buy web-hosting services from
the company, come with this "99.9%" guarantee.  Another "premium"
services promises "99.999%" uptime.

The lawsuit explains this concept as follows:

"For example, if a computer server fails to operate, and therefor
is "down", for ten minutes during a 24-hour period of time (or
1,440 minutes) its "uptime" would be 99.305%"

Doing some math, the suit notes that Go Daddy's servers cannot be
down for more than 43.2 minutes every 30 days.

The lawsuit cites Go Daddy Twitter updates, which approximates the
outage at more than six hours.

If Go Daddy's hosting and other services worked for every other
minute in September, it would have only 99.167 percent uptime, the
lawsuit claims.  The lawsuit notes that the "premium" services
must have been working prior to the invention of the computer to
achieve 99.999 percent uptime.

Now, the claim is that customers were offered "credits" and future
discounts, but the company did not automatically apply those.
These "credits" or discounts weren't even offered to all
customers, the lawsuit alleges.

The suit compares it more to a sales gimmick, with a bunch of
terms and conditions, instead of just providing some sort of cash
refund.

The lawsuit estimates the number of people in the class with a
claim against Go Daddy might be more than one million people.

The suit charges Go Daddy with negligence, violating the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of contract.

One possible problem is that the service agreement, which has
probably been reviewed by no one, ever, explains the guarantee,
and Go Daddy's actions with the "credits," appear to be consistent
with that agreement.


GOVGUAM: Plaintiffs Seek Payment of Tax Refunds Within 6 Mos.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clynt Ridgell, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that the
plaintiffs in the class action tax refund lawsuit are proposing
that GovGuam be forced to pay tax refunds within six months of
their filing date.  The governor's legal counsel says that GovGuam
wouldn't be able to afford this and they have asked for more time
to respond with a proposal of their own.

After she issued a decision ordering the timely payment of tax
refunds, federal judge Consuelo Marshall ordered both the
plaintiffs and defendants to submit their proposals for a
permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs attorney Ike Aguigui filed their proposal by the
Sept. 21 deadline suggesting that GovGuam be mandated to pay out
tax refunds within six months of the filing.  The plaintiffs
proposed permanent injunction would also require that GovGuam
immediately suspend and discontinue the practice of expediting tax
refunds or prioritizing the payment of refunds to some taxpayers
based on hardship need or any other reason. It would require that
rev&tax prioritize the payment of refunds according to the filing
date of the refund claim.

It would also mandate that if GovGuam fails to pay any refund on
time that interest payments be made to each taxpayer for whom the
refunds is owed.  GovGuam on the other hand asked for an extension
to file their proposed permanent injunction.

Governor Eddie Calvo's legal counsel Maria Cenzon explains.
"Rather than submit an order that we know that we know that we had
conditions that we couldn't comply with because of funding issues
obviously we just sought an additional time period in which to put
all of our fiscal team together and see how we can address both
the tax refunds that are due and owing from years prior as well as
on a going forward basis," said Ms. Cenzon.

Ms. Cenzon said they were hoping to file their proposed permanent
injunction by Sept. 21.  "I think what we're hoping to propose
would be somewhat of a phase in to allow us to see how much
revenue can be collected and whether a portion of that can be
dedicated again to paying off the tax refunds," said Ms. Cenzon.
In GovGuam's request for an extension, assistant A.G. Ken Orcutt
writes that "defendants believe the main impediment to developing
a plan has been the insufficient cash available to meet all
current year expenditures, unpaid prior year obligations and
unpaid tax refunds."

In fact, the problem, says Ms. Cenzon, is that GovGuam simply
doesn't have the money to pay out refunds within six months of
their filings.  "Because we already know that we don't have the
money in the bank right now there are very limited options of
course we don't want to end up in court again on an order to show
cause because we can't fulfill the proposed order," said Ms.
Cenzon.

Ultimately, Ms. Cenzon says that the final permanent injunction
will probably reflect something that GovGuam can actually carry
out as she doesn't believe that either side wants to propose
something that can't be complied with.


HANCOCK HOLDING: Awaits Final Okay of "LaCour" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hancock Holding Company is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Angelique
LaCour, et al. against its subsidiary, according to the Company's
August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The putative class action lawsuit, Angelique LaCour, et al. v.
Whitney Bank, is subject to a pending settlement agreement.  The
Court granted preliminary certification of the defined class and
approval of the proposed settlement on June 4, 2012.  Notices have
been mailed to the identified class members.  The Company had
established a liability for the proposed settlement in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and that reserve ($6.8 million) has been provided
to the Settlement Administrator to establish the escrow account
for the pending proposed settlement.

Hancock Holding Company -- http://www.hancockbank.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides financial and banking services
in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.  The
Company operates 300 banking and financial services offices and
400 automated teller machines.  It was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi.


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Improperly-Withheld Gratuities
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Harvard University does not
distribute service charges or other gratuities among waiters at
the Harvard Faculty Club or Loeb House, a class claims in court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez, et al. v. Harvard
University, Case No. 12-3759 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/25/HarvardU.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  hschwab@llrlaw.com
                  bcasavant@llrlaw.com


INDIANA: Social Services Agency Sued for Ending Food Allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the father of an autistic
Indianapolis man is suing Indiana's social services agency for
ending a state grocery allowance that helped feed hundreds of
developmentally disabled people.

Indianapolis attorney Steven Dick filed the lawsuit against the
Family and Social Services Administration last week in Marion
County on behalf of his 28-year-old son, who relies on public
assistance.  The suit seeks class action status on behalf of as
many as 1,500 people.

The 16-page complaint claims that the agency rewrote its policy in
2010 to avoid illegally decreasing the food allowance the state
paid to disabled residents enrolled in a Medicaid waiver program
to offset the amount they received in food stamps.  However, in
the same policy, the agency quietly eliminated the state food
allowance.

"Said calculated maneuver was to do indirectly what they had
wrongfully been doing directly," Mr. Dick's lawsuit claims.

FSSA spokeswoman Marni Lemons said in an e-mail on Sept. 21 that
the agency hasn't had time to review the complaint and doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit says state law obligates the social services agency to
pay the actual cost of room and board.  Board, the suit claims,
refers to meals. Since the policy change, Mr. Dick's son has had
to eat on $173 in food stamps per month, the complaint says.
Previously, he had also received a $200 monthly food allowance
from the state.

Mr. Dick claims in the suit that the agency terminated the food
allowance in retaliation for a related lawsuit he filed against
the agency in 2010. That lawsuit was later settled out of court.

Mr. Dick appealed the policy change, but an administrative law
judge dismissed his claim in August.  The lawsuit asks a Marion
County judge to declare the agency's policy change invalid and bar
the FSSA from reducing the amount of assistance paid to disabled
residents because they also receive food stamps.


JAPAN: Chinese Victims' Class Suit Over Chemical Weapons Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jin Haixing, writing for China Daily, reports that Chinese victims
of a toxic leak caused by abandoned World War II weapons vowed on
Sept. 23 to continue to fight for compensation and an apology from
the Japanese government, even though their second attempt to take
legal action in the case has been rejected by Tokyo judges.

One man died and 43 other people were poisoned on Aug 4, 2003,
when five canisters of Japanese mustard gas were unearthed at a
construction site in Qiqihar, Heilongjiang province.

Since 2005, the survivors of the incident and their families have
been locked in a legal battle with the Japanese authorities and
have tried twice to pursue lawsuits in the Tokyo District Court.

Their latest attempt at filing a class action suit, which involved
48 plaintiffs, was rejected on Sept. 21.

"We will not give up now," Niu Haiying, one of the victims and
unofficial spokeswoman for the plaintiffs, said on Sept. 23.
"We'll take our fight to the end, as far as the legal system will
allow us."

Ms. Niu, who spoke from a hospital bed in Qiqihar where she has
been receiving treatment for a cold and swollen eyes, said the
group's third appeal will be submitted to Japan's Supreme Court.

Since the accident in 2003, she said, she has had frequent health
troubles, including recurrent stomach pain.

Other victims of the exposure have suffered similar ill effects,
and two of the survivors have died, according to lawyers working
on the case.

In turning down the lawsuit on Sept. 23, the court virtually
repeated the ruling that was made in the first lawsuit to be
rejected, which was heard on May 24, 2010.

The court conceded that the mustard gas had caused harm and that
the facts of the case had been fully proved on Sept. 21, according
to the victims' lawyers.  Even so, it said that chemical weapons
had been abandoned over a large area and that no priority could be
given to one particular case of poisoning.

After invading China in the 1930s, the Japanese army produced a
vast amount of chemical weapons, of which at least 2 million
metric tons was buried or abandoned when Japan surrendered in
1945, according to China's Foreign Ministry.

Since then, the lethal relics have been discovered in many places
throughout the country -- mostly in the northeast.  About 2,000
people have died as a result.

"The verdict was absurd, as the court conceded all the facts and
proved the lawsuit," Li Lou, a Chinese-Japanese in charge of
general affairs for the legal team assisting the victims, said on
Sept. 23.

He said representatives of the plaintiffs and various NGOs were
expected to join a rally that was to take place on Sept. 24
outside the buildings housing the Japanese Diet and House of
Representatives to make more people aware of the case.

Mr. Li said preparations are being made to file an appeal.  Mr. Li
is part of a legal team that was set up in 2004 to help the
victims of the Qiqihar accident.

"At first, I joined the team (in 2004) purely out of sympathy," he
said.  "But eventually I realized I have an obligation to help
them win this battle.  They really need our help. Many of them are
migrant workers or farmers."

Most of the victims are barely educated and many lost their
ability to work in the accident, he said.

Aware of those circumstances, lawyers in both countries have been
providing legal services free of charge.  Chinese attorneys have
helped collect evidence and statements and their counterparts in
Japan have argued the case in Tokyo.

The plaintiffs say they want an apology and compensation from the
Japanese government, as well as the disposal of all chemical
weapons that have been abandoned in China.

Meanwhile, Li Lou said his legal team will encourage the Japanese
government to set up a long-term system to help victims deal with
healthcare and living costs.

On Sept. 23, another Qiqihar law firm offered its services for
free.

"The Japanese lawyers are so warmhearted," said Chi Susheng,
director of the Susheng Law Firm.  "As a lawyer in Qiqihar, I feel
I also have a responsibility to help."


LAKE COUNTY, FL: Faces Class Action Over Fire-Assessment Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ludmilla Lelis, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that Lake
property owners recently received notice about a class-action
lawsuit that aims to recoup fire-assessment fees paid from 2005 to
2008.

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by several property owners who
maintain the county improperly spent money from the annual fire
special assessment fee toward paramedic-level medical services at
fire stations.

More than 60,000 property owners may be affected by the lawsuit,
and if the plaintiffs prevail, they could stand to reclaim part of
that fee.

Mediation talks between the plaintiffs and county officials have
not resolved the lawsuit.  County Attorney Sandy Minkoff said the
county is contesting the claims.  The lawsuit is pending before
Senior Judge Victor Musleh, a retired chief circuit judge who has
been assigned the case.

Since 1998, Lake property owners have been paying an annual
special assessment for fire-rescue services, which is separate
from the property-tax rate.  Funds are used for fire stations,
equipment, training and salaries of fire-department personnel.

However, the suit focuses on the fees paid from 2005 to '08.  The
plaintiffs claim that during that period the county wrongly used
funds to pay for medical services that require advanced-life
support, or paramedic-level, response.  The cost for the advanced-
life-support medical services go beyond the basic first-responder
first-aid care firefighters had already provided, according to
court records.

Homeowners paid a fee of $137 per dwelling during fiscal year
2005-06, records show.  The fee increased to $171 in 2006-07 and
to $197 during 2007-08.  The fee varied for other property owners.
For example, for fiscal year 2005-06, $33 was assessed for every
space at an RV park and every hotel or motel room, while
commercial properties paid $358 to $17,893, depending on square
footage.

In 2009, four property owners filed suit, seeking a refund of
those fees.  The plaintiffs say the county should have separated
advanced-life-support services costs but included it in the fee.
During the period, Lake fire stations added more paramedics and
upgraded equipment.   The suit cites a 2002 Florida Supreme Court
ruling that found that cities and counties can't use special
assessments to pay for emergency medical services. Because they
benefit people and not properties, such services should be paid
through property taxes.

In December, Judge Musleh ruled that the suit merits "class-
action" status in that the rulings could affect any of the more
than 60,000 property owners who paid the fee.  To notify people
that they could have a claim, a notice was sent to those who owned
property and paid the special assessment from 2005 to '08.  Anyone
who wishes to be excluded from the suit must notify plaintiff
attorneys McLin Burnsed of Leesburg by Oct. 31.  Those who wish to
remain involved will continue to receive notices.


LES HALLES: Workers File Class Action Over Tip Pool
---------------------------------------------------
Annie Karni, writing for New York Post, reports that workers at
celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain's famed Les Halles have filed a
class action suit against the French brasserie, claiming managers
took tips and wages from servers and busboys.

Les Halles, which has a Murray Hill branch and a downtown outpost
on John Street, forced service employees to pool their tips for
divvying but then doled out 26 percent of them to floor managers,
according to papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court this month.

Managers are not entitled to tips if they didn't assist in
slinging the $64 Cote de Boeuf for two or talking up the quiche du
jour, attorney Jeffrey Goldman told The Post.

"It's wrong for managers to share in the tip pool," said Mr.
Goldman, who seeks to represent more than 100 people who worked at
the eatery over the past six years.

Les Halles also paid servers less than minimum wage, the suit
claims.

Mr. Bourdain, executive chef-at-large for Les Halles, was shocked
by the allegations:

"In my experiences at Les Halles, management was, if anything,
unusually scrupulous about these things."


LG DISPLAY: Oral Argument in Miss. LCD Price Fixing Suit in Oct. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals panel will
decide whether a Mississippi or federal court has jurisdiction
over a lawsuit alleging price fixing by manufacturers of liquid
crystal display screens.

A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled
oral argument in New Orleans for Oct. 5.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood sued several major suppliers
of LCD screens in Hinds County Chancery Court in March of 2011.
Mr. Hood alleged in the lawsuit that consumers paid extra because
of price fixing in violation of the Mississippi Consumer
Protection Act.

The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and civil penalties for
actions from 1996 to 2006 by companies in Japan, Korea and Taiwan,
plus their U.S. counterparts.

In June of 2011, the companies had the case transferred to federal
court.  They argued that if a lawsuit resembled a purported class
action that it should be considered a class action and be heard in
federal court.

U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves this May ordered the case
sent back to the Hinds County Chancery Court.  Judge Reeves said
his court did not have jurisdiction because the case was not a
class action and because federal law's general public exception
required it be returned to state court.

The companies appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit.

The companies filed briefs in the case this past week.  The
attorney general's office had a deadline of Sept. 24 to file a
response.

The companies have paid out millions to settle class-action
lawsuits and still face other lawsuits in the United States and
around the world.

The U.S. government is wrapping up an investigation of the scheme
that artificially increased the price of LCD screens used in
televisions, computers and other electronics.  The case involved
at least 12 manufacturers.


MANNKIND CORP: December 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Pomerantz Firm and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Sept. 24
issued a statement regarding the MannKind Corp. Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re MANNKIND CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates
To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 11-cv-00929-GAF (SSx), Honorable Gary A.
Feess, Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED PUBLICLY TRADED SHARES OF MANNKIND
CORPORATION COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 4, 2010, AND FEBRUARY 11,
2011, INCLUSIVE, AND INCURRED DAMAGES (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a settlement, in the amount of
Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000.00) in cash and 2,777,778
shares of MannKind Corporation common stock, has been proposed in
the above-captioned class action.  If the closing price of
MannKind common stock as reported on the NASDAQ is below $1.00 per
share on the Final Judgment Date, then an additional one million
(1,000,000) shares of MannKind common stock will be added to the
Settlement Fund.  A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gary
A. Feess in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California in Courtroom 740, 255 E. Temple St., Los
Angeles, CA 90012 at 9:30 a.m. on December 17, 2012, to determine:
(i) whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of the Class; (ii) whether Co-Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees (of not more than 25%)
and reimbursement of expenses (of not more than $200,000) should
be approved; (iii) whether the Court should grant Lead Plaintiff's
reimbursement of up to $32,400 for his reasonable costs and
expenses (including lost wages) directly related to his
representation of the Class; and (iv) whether the Court should
approve the release of Released Claims and the Released
Defendants' Claims against any and all Released Persons and
dismiss the Action with prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing
(the "Mailed Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form you may
obtain copies of these documents by downloading them from
http://www.gcginc.comor by contacting:

MannKind Corporation Securities Litigation c/o GCG P.O. Box 9933
Dublin, OH 43017-5833 (888) 892-2969

Inquiries, other than requests for the Mailed Notice or Proof of
Claim and Release form, may be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: 1-888-773-9224
          E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com

          Patrick Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
          10 South LaSalle St., Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 1-888-4POMLAW (1-888-476-6529)
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
and Release no later than January 4, 2013.  As more fully
described in the Mailed Notice, the deadline for submitting
objections to the Settlement is November 26, 2012 and the deadline
for requesting exclusion from the Class is November 19, 2012.

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, The Garden City Group
Inc., at the address listed above. Please do not contact the
Court.

By Order of the Court


NATIONAL WESTERN: Trial in Deferred Annuities Suit on Nov. 5
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit against National Western Life
Insurance Company in California alleging violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is presently
set for November 5, 2012, according to the Company's August 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit
pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The case is titled In Re
National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation.
The complaint asserts claims for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and
Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal.
Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive
Trust.  On July 12, 2010, the Court certified a nationwide class
of policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class
under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of
fiduciary duty.  Trial is presently set for November 5, 2012.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this
cause and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted
claims.  In addition, given the speculative and vague damage
theories presented by the plaintiffs in the matter, the inability
to ascertain any financial harm to the class of policyholders, and
the current status of the case before the Court, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss for
disclosure in the accompanying financial statements.  Therefore,
no amounts have been provided in the financial statements of the
Company as of June 30, 2012, for this matter.


NEW YORK: Must Face Suit Over Delayed Medicaid Fair Hearings
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
State must face a class action against thousands of Medicaid
recipients forced to wait too long to fight the denials of their
coverage, a federal judge ruled.

Marie Menking, 91, spent about a year as an inpatient at upper
Manhattan's Fort Tryon Center, which she tried to get reimbursed
through her Medicaid coverage.

New York State's Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, or
OTNA, denied that request on Aug. 23, 2007.

Ms. Menking says that she appealed her denial on time, but OTNA
dragged its feet 106 days before sending her a Notice of Fair
Hearing that initiates the process.

State law required them to hand her down a decision within 90
days.

After an adjournment at her request, Ms. Menking argued her case a
little more than a year later, but she says the agency would not
return a decision until she took them to court.

By April 27, 2009, the day she filed her complaint, the
nonagenarian said that the department left her waiting 298 days.

On Sept. 21, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that Ms.
Menking could pursue a class action against Dr. Richard Daines,
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, and David
Hansel, head of OTNA.

Her class includes "[a]ll current and future New York State
applicants for or recipients of Federal Medicaid who have
requested or will request fair hearings for whom Defendants fail
to render a fair hearing decision within ninety days from the date
of the request, excluding adjournments requested by the
appellant."

According to Judge Preska's order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald
Ellis authored a report and recommendation about the case finding
that roughly 12,000 fair hearing decisions had been issued late
between 2006 and 2010.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order in Menking v. Daines, et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-04103 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/kFLRVG


NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Action Over Leaf Vehicle Design Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nissan has concealed that its
Leaf vehicle prematurely lose battery life and driving range
because of design defect, a class claims in federal court.

A copy of the Complaint in Klee, et al. v. Nissan North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-08238 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/25/nissan.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Andrew Sokolowski, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: jlurie@initiativelegal.com
                  asokolowski@initiativelegal.com
                  tzohdy@initiativelegal.com


NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation continues to defend itself against antitrust
class action lawsuits initiated by Standard Iron Works and other
steel purchasers, according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The majority of these complaints were filed in
September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints
being filed in July and December of 2010.  Two of these complaints
have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.  The
plaintiffs allege that from January 2005 through 2008, eight steel
manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.  Although the Company
believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend against them, it cannot at this time predict the
outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's
potential exposure.


PERRIGO: Sued Over Reformulated Hypothyroidism Drug
---------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports
that 14 patients whose drug for treating hypothyroidism was
reformulated without their knowledge filed a class-action suit.

A lawyer representing 14 patients whose drug for treating
hypothyroidism was reformulated without their knowledge have filed
a class-action suit request to the Central Region District Court.

The lawsuit is aimed against Perrigo and GlaxoSmithKline Israel,
and two health funds -- Clalit and Maccabi Health Services.

The lawyer has asked for NIS 4.5 billion in damages for his
clients.

The Health Ministry did not initially require the companies to
tell doctors about the change in the widely taken drug, yet these
patients who take the drug for their chronic condition claim to
have suffered serious side effects.

The ministry set up a committee to investigate the incident, but
the lawyer and his clients were not satisfied.

The lawyer claimed that the health funds did not report problems
with the drug, Eltroxin, "even though they knew about them," and
that the ministry "glossed over the health insurers' obligations
to update their doctors."

The hypothyroid patients were exposed to the new formulation for
seven months before they realized the drug was different, the
attorney said.


PNC FINANCIAL: Bank to Settle Three Overdraft Fee Suits for $90MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. disclosed in its August 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that its
subsidiary reached an agreement in principle in June 2012 to
settle for $90 million three cases over overdraft fees.

In May 2012, in the lawsuits consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK), the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the cases captioned
Casayuran, et al. v. PNC Bank, National Association (Case No. 10-
cv-20496-JLK), Cowen, et al. v. PNC Bank, National Association
(Case No. 10-CV-21869-JLK), and Hernandez, et al. v. PNC Bank,
National Association (Case No. 10-CV-21868-JLK).

In June 2012, PNC Bank reached an agreement in principle to settle
the three cases in which class certification had been granted
against PNC Bank in the MDL Court.  As previously reported, this
agreement in principle provides for settlement of these cases for
$90 million.  This settlement is subject to, among other things,
final documentation, notice to the class, and court approval.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
operates as a diversified financial services company in the United
States and internationally.  The Company's segments are Retail
Banking, Asset Management Group, Residential Mortgage Banking,
Non-Strategic Assets Portfolio, and BlackRock.  The Company was
founded in 1922 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PNC FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Suit Over Interchange Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. entered into a memorandum
of understanding in July to settle a consolidated lawsuit over
interchange fees, according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In July 2012, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the class plaintiffs and an agreement in
principle with certain individual plaintiffs with respect to a
settlement of the cases that have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master
File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO), under which the defendants will
collectively pay approximately $6.6 billion to the class and
individual settling plaintiffs and have agreed to changes in the
terms applicable to their respective card networks.  The
settlement is subject to, among other things, final documentation
and court approval.  As a result of the previously funded
litigation escrow, which will cover substantially all of the
Company's share of the Visa portion, the impact to the Company's
second quarter results was not material and it anticipates no
material financial impact from the monetary amount of this
settlement.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
operates as a diversified financial services company in the United
States and internationally.  The Company's segments are Retail
Banking, Asset Management Group, Residential Mortgage Banking,
Non-Strategic Assets Portfolio, and BlackRock.  The Company was
founded in 1922 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PRESIDENTIAL LIFE: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presidential Life Corporation is facing two class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with an Athene Annuity & Life
Assurance Company subsidiary, according to the Company's
August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 12, 2012, the Company and Athene Annuity & Life Assurance
Company ("Athene"), a Delaware-domiciled insurer focused on retail
fixed and index annuity sales and reinsurance, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions
therein, a newly formed subsidiary of Athene will merge with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Athene.

The Company, its directors, Athene and Merger Sub were named as
defendants in two putative class action complaints filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland.  One
complaint is captioned Katen Patel v. Presidential Life Corp.,
Donald L. Barnes, John D. McMahon, Dominic F. D'Adamo, William A.
Demilt, Ross B. Levin, Lawrence Read, Lawrence Rivkin, Stanley
Rubin, Frank A. Shepard, William M. Trust Jr., Athene Annuity &
Life Assurance Company and Eagle Acquisition Corp., and was filed
on July 18, 2012 (the "Patel Complaint").  The second complaint
(the "Palmisano Complaint") was brought in the name of an Anthony
Palmisano, as plaintiff, and names the same defendants as the
Patel Complaint.   The Palmisano Complaint was filed on July 30,
2012.

The Patel Complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger because,
among other things, the proposed Merger is the product of a flawed
process, the Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protection
terms and the Company's directors failed to properly value
Presidential.  The complaint further alleges that Athene aided and
abetted the directors' purported breaches.  The plaintiff seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the
Company from consummating the Merger, and damages, in addition to
fees and costs.  The Palmisano Complaint asserts substantially the
same allegations and purported claims, and seeks essentially the
same relief, as the Patel Complaint.

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

The Company intends to file preliminary proxy materials with the
SEC that address the sales process and the Board of Directors'
considerations for the sale.


RAYMOND JAMES: Unit Faces Class Suits Over Certain Mutual Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing class action
lawsuits brought on behalf of investors, who purchased shares of
certain mutual funds, according to the Company's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. entities, along with
Regions Financial Corporation, have been named in class-action
lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors
who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds") and shareholders of
Regions.  The Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset
Management, an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of
the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of
the Company's Morgan Keegan acquisition ("MAM").  The complaints
contain various allegations, including claims that the Regions
Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts relating to the activities of the Funds.  No class
has been certified.  Certain of the shareholders in the Funds and
other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings
and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class
action lawsuits.


SEQWATER: State Report Backs Wivenhoe Dam Engineer's Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Madigan, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a
multi-billion-dollar lawsuit is set to become the next chapter in
the January 2011 flood saga after a crucial US Government report
backed the actions of the four flood engineers who controlled
Wivenhoe Dam.

The report -- by the Department of the Interior and the US Army
Corps of Engineers -- has warned the massive dam sitting above
Brisbane is far more lethal than previously believed, and further
re-inforced previous criticism of the dam's manual.

But it strongly backed the actions of the four dam engineers who
were repeatedly accused in the $15 million flood inquiry of
mismanaging the dam and confecting a fraudulent report to cover
their tracks.

The report is a potential blow to flood victims seeking
compensation but lawyers are determined to proceed with legal
action, with thousands of claimants signed up to a class action
demanding billions of dollars in compensation.

The State Government has refused to concede it will negotiate on
compensation payouts, effectively telling flood victims: "see you
in court".

Previous Labor premier Anna Bligh indicated the government and dam
operator Seqwater would behave as a model litigant, potentially
negotiating some compensation claims.

But Premier Campbell Newman refused to reveal his hand on Sept.
24, saying those who wanted to pursue compensation had their
rights.

"People who have a complaint, they will have to look at these
things and make a judgment, it is a free country," he said.

Mr. Newman also ruled out reducing the dam to 75 per cent capacity
to increase the flood compartment after weather forecasts
predicted an average rainy season.

The weather bureau says widespread floods probably won't occur
because the La Nina weather pattern that brought heavy downpours
in recent years has finally broken up.

"At this stage there will be no draw down to 75 per cent because
they're not forecasting large rain events or consistent rain
events," Mr. Newman said.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers says the number of people with a
"complaint" was now approaching 5000 and the Sept. 24 report was
immaterial to their case, which is that the dam was filled with
too much water before operators went into a panic and emptied it.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said international
experts were preparing their own reports on the flood event.

"This (American report) has no bearing on what we are doing,"
Mr. Scattini said.

Three of the engineers, John Tibaldi, Rob Ayre and Terry Malone,
were cleared of any wrongdoing by the Crime and Misconduct
Commission last month.

The American report was definitive in its findings that the men
performed well in the critical early days of January 2011 when
Wivenhoe filled to capacity and was in danger of collapse.

"Their decisions were prudent and showed considerable insight into
the precision and accuracy of available hydrometeorological
information," the report said.  Alternative operation could have
been used, however.  "Without the benefit of perfect foresight,
there still would have been a risk that the outcome could have
been worse as well as better.

"It is unlikely that reasonable alternative operations would have
made a significant difference in peak flows for an event of this
magnitude," the report said.

The US review fulfils a key recommendation by the flood Inquiry --
that an independent person or organization review Seqwater's flood
event report, authored by the engineers.

While the flood inquiry was highly critical of what it believed to
be a deeply flawed report, the Americans were clearly impressed by
the document.

"The substantial amount of data and level of detail provided in
the six-week allotted timeframe is exceptional," it said.

The Americans also have highlighted the ongoing dangers of having
a massive body of water stored above the state capital.

The collapse of dams' walls at either Wivenhoe or Somerset would
lead to substantial loss of life in the southeast, the report
said, but added: "It is acknowledged that updated risk assessments
are currently under way for both Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams."

Engineers Australia Queensland president Steven Goh said after an
exhaustive review process it was clear the Wivenhoe dam engineers
had performed their jobs well.

"It is clear that the professional engineers involved performed
their role admirably under trying circumstances and that Wivenhoe
Dam achieved its function of mitigating the effect of the floods,"
Mr. Goh said.

"Their commitment to the community they serve cannot be
questioned."


SNC LAVALIN: Judge Certifies Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Helen Wright, writing for International Construction, reports that
a Canadian judge has approved a class action lawsuit from
shareholders against SNC Lavalin that brings the total damages
sought over the contractor's suspect payments in Libya to C$1
billion (US$ 1 billion).

The new filing in the Canadian Province of Ontario has been
certified by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court.

It comes after a separate group of shareholders filed a similar
collective lawsuit in Quebec, seeking C$250 million (US$252
million) in damages after the value for their investment in the
contractor fell following revelations about the mystery payments.

Dimitri Lascaris, a partner at law firm Siskinds which filled both
class action lawsuits on behalf of SNC Lavalin shareholders, said
the total amount being sought in both class actions was
approximately C$1 billion (US$1 billion).

Commenting on the Ontario action, Mr. Lascaris  said, "The
plaintiffs and their counsel are pleased to have achieved
certification of the action within several months of having
commenced the litigation (certification generally takes well in
excess of a year and often takes two or more years).  We are
anxious to begin discovery and look forward to examining the non-
public evidence in this matter."

In March this year, Pierre Duhaime resigned as CEO of SNC Lavalin
after an internal investigation found he signed-off on C$35.5
million (US$ 56 million) in mystery payments, even though they
were refused by the normal signatories.  An internal investigation
has failed to find what the payments were for.

SNC Lavalin vice president Riadh Ben Aissa, who oversaw its
operations in Libya, and vice president controller Stephane Roy
also left the company in February this year.

In April, Mr. Ben Aissa was arrested in Switzerland as part of an
investigation by the Swiss Ministere Public de la Confederation
(Federal Prosecutor) into corruption, fraud and money laundering
connected to North Africa.

The Ontario lawsuit was brought on behalf of all SNC-Lavalin
investors who purchased shares between February 1, 2007, and
February 28, 2012, or who bought debentures through the company's
June 2009 prospectus offering.

SNC Lavalin has denied the allegations and has said it plans to
defend itself.  A trial could begin next year or early in 2014
unless the case is settled.


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 12T Bikes Due to Fall & Injury Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill,
California, and manufacturer: Kinesis, of China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 12,000 bicycles.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The front fork can break, posing fall and injury hazards to
riders.

Specialized has received four reports of front forks breaking,
resulting in facial fractures, head and shoulder injuries and
cuts.

This recall involves some 2008 and 2009 models of women's and
men's Globe model bicycles. Recalled models include the Globe
Elite, Globe Sport, Globe Sport Disc, Globe Centrum Comp, Globe
Centrum Elite, Globe City 6, Globe Vienna 3, Globe Vienna 3 Disc,
Globe Vienna 4, Globe Vienna Deluxe 3, Globe Vienna Deluxe 4,
Globe Vienna Deluxe 5 and Globe Vienna Deluxe 6 bicycles.  The
bicycles were sold in various colors, including gun, silver,
black, khaki, navy, bone, blue, charcoal, burgundy and gold. The
brand name "Specialized" is on the lower frame tube and the model
name is on various locations on the bicycle frame.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12281.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized Specialized retailers nationwide from July 2007 to July
2012 for between $550 and $1,100.

Consumers should immediately stop riding these bicycles and return
them to an authorized Specialized retailer for the free
installation of a free replacement fork.  For additional
information, contact Specialized toll-free at (877) 808-8154 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the Company's Web site at http://www.specialized.com/and
click on Support/Safety Notices.


SUNLAND INC: Recalls Almond, Cashew, Tahini and Peanut Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunland, Inc. announced a voluntary recall of its Almond Butter
and Peanut Butter, which it has now expanded to include its Cashew
Butter, Tahini and Roasted Blanched Peanut Products.  This recall
is limited to products manufactured between May 1, 2012, and
September 24, 2012.  These products may be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and those
with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The voluntary recall was initiated after learning that between
June 11, 2012, and September 2, 2012, twenty-nine people reported
Salmonella Bredeney PFGE matching illnesses in approximately 18
states, including Washington, California, Arizona, Texas,
Louisiana, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Virginia,
Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, according to a report issued
on September 22, 2012 by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).

"There is nothing more important to us than the health and safety
of our customers, particularly the many families who enjoy our
peanut butter everyday.  While FDA, CDC, and State Health Agencies
investigate to confirm the cause of illnesses reported, as a
precautionary step, we have decided to voluntarily recall our
Almond Peanut and Cashew Butters, Tahini and Roasted Blanched
Peanut products manufactured between May 1, 2012, and
September 24, 2012.  If you purchased these products, do not eat
them.  Please return the product to your supermarket for a full
refund or dispose of it," said Jimmie Shearer, President and CEO
of Sunland, in a statement.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).  No other Sunland products are
affected by this recall.

The products were distributed nationally to numerous large
supermarket chains and were available for purchase on the
internet.

The specifics of the affected products are as follows: The UPC is
located on the side of the jar's label below the bar code.

UPC            Type of product                         Jar Size
---            ---------------                         --------
8523902334     Archer Farms Creamy Almond Butter         16 oz

8523902333     Archer Farms Peanut Butter with Flax      16 oz
                Seeds

3377610090     Earth Balance Natural Almond Butter       16 oz
                and Flaxseed

051379022518   fresh & easy Crunchy Almond Butter        16 oz

20003357       fresh & easy Organic Creamy Peanut        16 oz
                Butter with Sea Salt

20003364       fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter         18 oz

20003388       fresh & easy Organic Crunchy Peanut       16 oz
                Butter with Sea Salt

051379026431   fresh & easy Creamy Peanut Butter         40 oz

20003395       fresh & easy Creamy Almond Butter         16 oz

20003357       fresh & easy Organic Creamy Peanut        16 oz
                Butter with Sea Salt

20003371       fresh & easy Crunchy Peanut Butter        18 oz

2060140048     heinen's All Natural Peanut Butter,       16 oz
                Creamy

2060140047     heinen's All Natural Peanut Butter,       16 oz
                Crunchy

2060140046     heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, Creamy    16 oz

2060140045     heinen's Organic Peanut Butter, Crunchy   16 oz

3307915073     Joseph's Salt-Free No Sugar Added New     18 oz
                Crunchy Valencia Peanut Butter

3307915072     Joseph's Salt-Free No Sugar Added New     18 oz
                Creamy Valencia Peanut Butter

910053         Natural Value Creamy Peanut Butter/Salt   15 lb

910060         Natural Value Crunchy Peanut Butter/Salt  15 lb

5859500020     Naturally More Organic Peanut Butter      16 oz

5859500019     Naturally More Almond Butter              16 oz

5859500033     Naturally More Peanut Butter Crunchy      16 oz

5859500055     Naturally More Peanut Butter,             26 oz
                Gluten Free Vegan

5859500050     Naturally More Peanut Butter,             16 oz
                Gluten Free Vegan

7989311202     Open Nature Crunchy Peanut Butter         16 oz

7989311201     Open Nature Old Fashioned Creamy          16 oz
                Peanut Butter

5855200003     Peanut Power Butter, Original Formula     16 oz

5855200007     Peanut Power Butter, Original Formula      4 lb

4792100442     Serious Food, Silly Prices Almond         12 oz
                Butter Creamy

4792100439     Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic        16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Crunchy

4792100438     Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic        16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Creamy

4792100436     Serious Food, Silly Prices Organic        16 oz
                Peanut Butter, Creamy

4792100435     Serious Food, Silly Prices,               16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Crunchy

4792100434     Serious Food, Silly Prices,               16 oz
                No-Stir Peanut Butter, Creamy

4792100432     Serious Food, Silly Prices,               16 oz
                Peanut Butter, Creamy

8506000004     Snaclite Power PB                         16 oz

7487500334     Sprouts Farmers Market Creamy             16 oz
                Peanut Butter, No Salt

7487500335     Sprouts Farmers Market Crunchy            16 oz
                Peanut Butter, No Salt

7487500336     Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter             16 oz

7487500337     Sprout's Crunchy Peanut Butter            16 oz

7487500433     Sprout's Creamy Almond Butter             16 oz

7487500434     Sprout's Crunchy Almond Butter            16 oz

7487500431     Sprout's Creamy Peanut Butter             16 oz

4868787906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Crunchy     16 oz
                Valencia No Stir

4868786906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Valencia No Stir

4868722906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter Creamy      16 oz
                Salt Free Valencia

4868709915     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter with         40 oz
                Sea Salt

4868726910     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              12 oz

062725         Sunland Dark Roast Creamy Peanut Butter   40 lb

4868730725     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

029725         Sunland Pecan Deluxe Creamy               40 lb
                Peanut Butter

028725         Sunland Pecan Deluxe Crunchy              40 lb
                Peanut Butter

26570          Sunland Creamy Dark Roast Peanut Butter  500 lb

4868726909     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              18 oz

4868767909     Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter      18 oz

4868785920     Sunland Valencia Peanut Sauce             36 oz

22725          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              40 lb

22704          Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter               5 lb

4868722715     Sunland Organic Creamy Peanut Butter      40 lb

4868721722     Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             15 lb

48687009704    Sunland Natural Creamy Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868790301     Sunland Creamy Natural Stabilizer         50 lb
                Peanut Butter

87725          Sunland Crunchy Natural Stabilized        40 lb
                Peanut Butter

4868786724     Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              35 lb

4868786704     Sunland Creamy No Stir Peanut Butter       5 lb

4868784301     Sunland Extra Stabilized Organic          50 lb
                Creamy Peanut Butter

21705          Sunland Crunchy Peanut Butter             40 lb

25704          Crunchy Sugar Butter                       5 lb

26704          Creamy Sugar Butter                        5 lb

072704         Sunland Almond Butter                      5 lb

003050         Dogsbutter RUC with Flax PB               16 oz

4868772906     Sunland Natural Almond Butter,            16 oz
                Creamy Roasted Almond

00989275       Trader Joe's Valencia Peanut Butter
                with Roasted Flaxseeds, Crunchy and Salted

00971119       Trader Joe's Valencia Creamy Salted       16 oz
                Peanut Butter with Sea Salt

00940795       Trader Joe's Almond Butter with           16 oz
                Roasted Flaxseeds, Crunchy & Salted

Updated to include the following products:

8523902336     Archer Farms Almond, Peanut &             16 oz
                Cashew Butter

8523920335     Archer Farms Creamy Cashew Butter         16 oz

051379022525   fresh & easy Creamy Cashew Butter         16 oz

003248         Fresh & Easy Creamy Peanut Butter Cups  72/2 oz

051379041625   fresh & easy goodness valencia Creamy      12/8
                Peanut Butter                       1.1 oz cups
                                                    in a carton

8099473873     Harry & David Crunchy Almond and          12 oz
                Peanut Butter

8099473871     Harry & David Creamy Banana               12 oz
                Peanut Spread

8099473872     Harry & David Creamy Raspberry            12 oz
                Peanut Spread

4792100444     Serious Food Silly Prices Tahini          12 oz

047730         Sunland Creamy Peanut Butter              30 lb

41330          Sunland Organic Valencia Roasted and      30 lb
                Blanched Peanuts

4868763325     Sunland Roasted and Blanched Runner       30 lb
                Peanuts

4868763326     Sunland Roasted and Blanched Bar          30 lb
                Ready Runner Peanuts

4868771725     Sunland Sesame Tahini                     40 lb

41323          Sunland Valencia Roasted Blanched         30 lb
                Salted

4868757906     Sunland Natural Mixed Nut Butter,         16 oz
                Crunchy Almonds and Peanuts

4868760906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Banana Spread

4868773906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Chocolate Spread

4868761906     Sunland Natural Peanut Butter, Creamy     16 oz
                Raspberry Spread

4868771906     Sunland Natural Tahini, Creamy Roasted    16 oz
                Sesame

4868732810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Creamy

4868731810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Crunchy

4868755810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Creamy Cherry Vanilla

4868754810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Creamy Dark Chocolate

4868747810     Sunland Organic Valencia Peanut Butter,   12 oz
                Crunchy Chipotle Chile

Best-If-Used-By Dates: This recall applies to the above products
with Best-If-Used-By Dates between May 1, 2013, and September 24,
2013.  (Stamped on the side of the jar's label below the lid of
the jar.)

Consumers who have purchased Sunland's Almond Butter, Peanut
Butter, Cashew Butter, Tahini and Roasted Blanched peanut products
with the above UPC and Best-If-Used-By-Dates are urged to discard
the product immediately.  Consumers can contact the company at 1-
866-837-1018, which is operational 24 hours a day, for information
on the recall.  In addition, a consumer services representative is
available Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Mountain Time at (575) 356-6638.

Media representatives should contact Ms. Katalin Coburn, Vice
President for Media Relations, Sunland, Inc., at 805-796-3368.


UNITED BANKSHARES: Still Defends Suits Over Overdraft Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Bankshares, Inc. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiary from two class action lawsuits over overdraft fees,
according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In April 2011, United Bankshares, Inc. and United Bank, Inc. of
West Virginia were named as defendants in two putative class
actions.  In the first putative class action, the plaintiffs seek
to represent a national class of United Bank, Inc. of West
Virginia customers allegedly harmed by United Bank's overdraft
practices relating to debit card transactions.  In the second
putative class action, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
West Virginia residents allegedly harmed by United Bank's
overdraft practices relating to debit card transactions.

These lawsuits are substantially similar to class action lawsuits
being filed against financial institutions nationwide.  With
respect to the first putative class action, in July of 2012, the
federal court denied a motion to dismiss filed by United
Bankshares, Inc. and United Bank, Inc. of West Virginia.  With
respect to the second putative class action, in September of 2011,
the West Virginia state court ruled on a motion to dismiss filed
by United Bankshares, Inc. and United Bank, Inc. of West Virginia.
Although the West Virginia state court denied the motion as to
United Bank, Inc. of West Virginia, the motion was granted,
without prejudice, as to United Bankshares, Inc.  In July of 2012,
the state court certified a question to the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals concerning whether the West Virginia Consumer
Credit Protection Act applies to United Bank's overdraft
practices.

Otherwise, at this stage of the proceedings, the Company says it
is too early to determine if these matters would be reasonably
expected to have a material adverse effect on United's financial
condition.  An estimate as to possible loss cannot be provided at
this time because such estimate cannot be made with certainty.
United believes there are meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted in both proceedings.


URALKALI: To Pay $12.75MM to Settle Part in U.S. Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Scherer, writing for Ag Professional, reports that a
leading Russian potash manufacturer settled its part of a U.S.
antitrust lawsuit charging several potash producers of price
fixing since 2003.  Uralkali has agreed to pay direct and indirect
plaintiffs $10 million and $2.75 million respectively.

The class-action lawsuit, which originally began in 2008, was
dismissed last September, but the U.S. Court of Appeals revived
the case in June.  The lawsuit accuses seven companies of fixing
the price of potash.

The other defendants include Agrium, Potash Corp, Mosaic,
Silvinit, which is now merged with Uralkali), Belarusian Potash
and International Potash.  These manufacturers produce 70 percent
of the potash used throughout the world.  The groups have been
accused of operating as a cartel.

Uralkali's decision to settle is expected to put pressure on the
other remaining defendants to settle.

U.S. producers balked at the steep increase in potash prices
between 2004 and 2008 when the recession hit the economy.  Potash
was priced at $100 per tonne in 2004 and rose to nearly $900 per
tonne in 2008.  After the market burst, prices fell to $350 per
tonne.  Today, the current price is ranging between $460 and $470
per tonne.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax on Coupons
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that consumers who present
Wal-Mart coupons to buy products there are charged state tax on
the full price, rather than the discounted amount, a class claims
in court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stern v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Case No.
L-3840-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/25/Walmart.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
                  ptaylor@aftlaw.com


WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Claims Cert. Bid Ruling in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on plaintiff's
motions to proceed with securities claims and to certify
securities and oppression claims as class actions against a
subsidiary in Canada, according to the Company's August 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In November 2009, Western Coal Corp., a Company subsidiary, was
named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a plaintiff
who seeks leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a securities
class action.  This claim also named Western Coal's former
President and director, John Hogg, and two of its non-executive
directors, John Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants.

The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added
new allegations that seeks to have the amended claim certified as
a class action separately from the proposed securities class
action allegations.  The new allegations focused on certain
transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to
the interests of shareholders.  The amended claim included
additional defendants of Western Coal's former Chairman, John
Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and
Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund
Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors
LLP.

The proposed securities claims allege that those persons who
acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14,
2007, and December 10, 2007, should be entitled to recover $200
million for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages.
The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial
statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the
accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007,
misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that Western
Coal failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all
material facts and changes.

The plaintiff's oppression claims are advanced in respect of
security holders in the period between April 26, 2007, and
July 13, 2009.  The claims are that the defendants caused Western
Coal to enter into transactions that had a dilutive effect on the
interests of shareholders.  The damages associated with these
alleged dilutive effects have not been developed or quantified.

The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also
to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions
were argued in June.  The court has reserved decision, and it is
not known when the decision will be rendered.

Western Coal and the other named defendants will continue to
vigorously defend the allegations.  They maintain that there is no
merit to the claims and that the damages are without foundation
and excessive.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WALTER ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in Alabama, according to the
Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On January 26, 2012, and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.).  The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and European Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants").  The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011, and September 21,
2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011.  The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading.  Plaintiffs claim violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.  On May
30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also appointed the
Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service
Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu
Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action.  A consolidated amended complaint has not
yet been filed.  Walter Energy and the other named defendants
believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged and intend to
vigorously defend these actions.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WALTER ENERGY: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by Louise
Moore, according to the Company's August 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

The Company and Walter Coke Inc. were named in a lawsuit filed by
Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy,
Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  This is a
putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising
from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including
arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a
result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted
by the companies and/or their predecessors.  This action is still
in the early stages of litigation.  On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a
defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to
relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing
after March 2, 1995.  Based on initial evaluation, management
believes that both procedural and substantive defenses are
available to the Company and Walter Coke intends to vigorously
defend this matter.  No specific dollar value has been claimed in
the lawsuit's demand for monetary damages.  On June 20, 2011,
Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss which was heard on October
28, 2011.  As of August 8, 2012, a ruling has not been received.

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

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. Court Won't Dismiss Suit v. Dana Kepner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Kepner Company filed a motion to dismiss an asbestos product
liability action filed by Barbara Church.  The action seeks
damages for negligence, strict liability, conspiracy, and wrongful
death arising from the demise of Ms. Church's husband, who, after
a career laying pipes, including asbestos cement pipes that
Defendant sold, died of asbestos-related mesothelioma.

Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado found that Ms. Church, at this stage in the
case, has adequately alleged that the Defendant had actual
knowledge of a defect in the asbestos pipes it sold. For her
conspiracy claim, Judge Arguello also rules for the Plaintiff
holding that the Plaintiff's assessment that conduct beyond mere
negligence -- including, perhaps, "fraudulent concealment, willful
and wanton conduct, and recklessness" -- will be implicated if
Plaintiff can prove her claims.

For the reasons stated, Judge Arguello denied the Defendant's
motion.

The case is BARBARA CHURCH, Individually, and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of William Church, Plaintiff, v. DANA
KEPNER COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 11-cv-02632-CMA-
MEH (Col.).  A copy of Judge Arguello's Decision dated Sept. 16,
2012, is available at http://is.gd/O5oE9kfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Refuses to Consolidate Two Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith J. Gische of the Supreme Court, New York County,
refused to consolidate for trial two asbestos exposure actions
after finding that the actions did not satisfy the factors
enunciated in the seminal case of Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co.,
995 F. 2d 346 (2nd Cir. 1993).

Judge Gische found that the cases, filed separately on behalf of
Diana Verde and Sydney Ploecklmann, do not have enough
similarities in terms of (1) work site/occupation, (2) time of
exposure, and (3) type of disease (Ploeckelmann suffered pleural
mesothelioma while Verde suffered peritoneal mesothelioma).

The cases are Joanne Bischofsberger, Carolanne Chamberlain and
Suzanne V. Paddock, as co-executrixes of Estate of Diana Mary
Verde and Anthony Verde, Plaintiffs, and Marilyn Ploeckelmann,
individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Sydney
Ploeckelmann, Plaintiffs, v. AO Smith Water Products, et. al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 107352/2005, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.).  A
copy of Judge Gische's Decision dated September 19, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/oeG8ZDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Bars Wrongful Death Suit vs. SSW Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, affirmed a trial court's ruling granting the motion for
summary judgment filed by defendant and respondent SSW, Inc.  The
decedent in this wrongful death action, a California resident,
died of mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer.  The trial court
granted summary judgment to SSW, a Nebraska company, on two
distinct grounds: (1) the trial court found that, pursuant to the
Nebraska corporate survival statute, the decedent's heirs are
barred from suing SSW because the company was dissolved in 2002,
over five years before it was brought into this lawsuit; and (2)
the trial court found no triable issue of fact with respect to
whether decedent had been exposed to an asbestos-containing
product manufactured, distributed or sold by SSW.

The Plaintiffs contend that Nebraska law is not controlling in the
case because SSW was licensed to do business in California and is
being sued for injuries sustained in California.  The Plaintiffs
contend that California's corporate survival statute, Corporations
Code section 2010, governs instead of Nebraska's statute.  Section
2010 imposes no time limitation on suing dissolved corporate
entities for predissolution business-related activities.

Under section 2010, subdivision (a), "[a] corporation which is
dissolved nevertheless continues to exist for the purpose of
winding up its affairs, prosecuting and defending actions by or
against it. . . ."  Subdivision (b) is even more direct: "No
action or proceeding to which a corporation is a party abates by
the dissolution of the corporation or by reason of proceedings for
winding up and dissolution thereof."

The Court of Appeals debunked the Plaintiff's argument and looked
into the definition of "corporation" under section 162 of the
Corporations Code, which also includes section 2010.  After
analysis of section 162, the Court of Appeals ruled that SSW is
not a corporation "organized under" division one for purposes of
Section 162 and does not fall within the scope of section 162 as
"a corporation subject to [division one] under the provisions of
subdivision (a) of Section 102."

The case is CAROLYN ROBINSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
SSW, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. A130174 (Calif.).  A copy
of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 21, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/iL87gJfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Certainteed Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight, affirmed a trial court's order granting a motion for new
trial filed by defendant Certainteed Corporation in a "secondary
or take-home" asbestos exposure case filed by Bobby and Rhoda
Evans.  The Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in
granting Certainteed's motion for new trial based on the jury's
failure to allocate any fault to JohnsManville, also one of the
named defendants.

The Court of Appeals found that there was evidence at trial which
showed that Bobby Evan's former employer purchased more AC pipe
from JM during the period of his employment than it did from CTC,
therefore, new trial is warranted.

The case is BOBBY EVANS, as successor-in-interest, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant
and Cross-Appellant; LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER,
Defendant and Cross-Respondent, No. B227075 (Calif.).  A copy of
the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 24, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/zhKIhrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Former Candy Store Starts Oct. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Solon Economist reports that it might be a while before
Solon's new city hall takes shape.

The City of Solon took possession of 100 W. Main St. in July,
intending to convert the two-story location formerly known as the
Candy Store into city offices and council chambers.

Asbestos removal has been scheduled for the beginning of October,
but council members are in no hurry to rush the project.

At an Aug. 29 special meeting, the Solon City Council approved a
bid of $14,250 from Abatement Specialties of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a
significant savings over original estimates, which were closer to
$50,000.  During an environmental assessment, asbestos was
identified as being present in the floor of the main level, the
ceilings of the second-story apartments and around the windows and
doors of the apartments.

According to city administrator Cassandra Lippincott, Abatement
Specialties will begin work on removal Oct. 1 with approximately
six days scheduled before completion.

Meanwhile, a small committee will be at work trying to reach
consensus on a basic framework of improvements for the building
and the next steps needed to move forward.

The structure was constructed in 1972 and features pre-stressed
concrete ceilings and 7,200 square feet of space, with apartments
on the second level.  The lower level of the building is projected
to provide adequate space for city offices, council chambers and a
conference room.

The committee- Lippincott, public works director Scott Kleppe and
council members Steve Stange and Mark Krall- will attempt to
determine how many offices are needed and what base improvements
need to be made.

How far the city goes with the project will largely depend on the
cost of rehabilitation.

The city has approved borrowing up to $900,000 in Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) bonds to finance the purchase and renovation of the
Main Street building, and with a $214,000 purchase price and the
cost of asbestos removal, there will be roughly $660,000 available
for renovations.

The committee is expected to meet for the first time prior to the
Sept. 19 regular council meeting, Stange said.  He said it was
possible the city might look at phased improvements for the second
story, depending on the costs of upgrading the ground level.

Once the committee has a handle on the costs for minimum
improvements, the city anticipates seeking Requests For Proposals
(RFPs) from architectural firms for design services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McAllen High School Notifies Parents of Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin for The Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that
contractors working on repairing the damage from a springtime hail
storm discovered what appeared to be asbestos under the gym floor
in the McAllen High School.  The discovery occurred on Friday,
Sept. 14 and tests conducted confirmed the presence of asbestos on
Saturday, Sept. 15.

Though officials assure students, faculty and construction workers
that the asbestos is safe and only comprises a small percentage of
the material under the gym floor, precautionary measures are
already underway.  On Monday, Sept. 17, McAllen School District
officials sent letters to parents of the high school students and
kept the gym cordoned off until the asbestos is safely and
properly removed.

In the letter sent to parents, McAllen School District officials
said that the removal of asbestos or asbestos abatement will be
included in the ongoing repair work currently underway in the gym,
and the total construction project will be completed sometime in
late fall.

Whether the current construction team hired to repair the damage
from the March 2012 hailstorm will be the asbestos abatement crew
is yet to be determined along with the additional costs removing
the toxic material will add to the overall renovation budget.

According to the test results, the asbestos comprises only 2% of
the total material found under the gym floor.  Further indoor air
quality tests were performed to ensure that the air in the gym and
the air in McAllen High School is free of asbestos contaminants.
Test results proved the air is safe.

Asbestos is classified as a carcinogen or a cancer causing agent,
and asbestos exposure is akin to smoking cigarettes.  During the
mid-twentieth century, the use of asbestos was prolific.  Since
the confirmation that asbestos is highly toxic, most countries
have banned further use or manufacturing of the material. Further,
many countries, including the United States, have also banned
mining of asbestos as well as importation and exportation of the
toxin.

Exposure to asbestos may lead to both short and long term health
issues. Primarily, asbestos exposure is linked to mesothelioma, a
form of cancer that affects the protective tissue of the lungs,
heart and abdominal cavity.  Other medical conditions associated
with asbestos exposure range from immediate breathing difficulties
to lung cancer.  However, the most deadly disease caused by
asbestos exposure is mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison Case Settled as Attorneys Completed Jury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports
that by the time asbestos attorneys whittled a jury from a pool of
53 to 14, the case settled at 10:02 a.m. Wednesday, Sept. 19 in
Madison County Associate Judge Clarence Harrison's courtroom.

"I don't have any idea" what the settlement was, Harrison said,
while signing the jurors' certificates in his office.  "I didn't
wait around to hear anything other than it was resolved."

Opening statements were expected to start Wednesday morning in a
case brought by Robert Kreimer and his wife, Margie Kreimer, of
Cleves, Ohio.  The couple sued 66 corporate defendants in November
2010, and all but two defendants -- mechanical seal manufacturer
John Crane Co. and metal valve maker Crane Co. -- had settled or
had been dismissed prior to the beginning of jury selection on
Monday, Sept. 17.

Robert Kreimer claimed he suffered from mesothelioma.

His lawyer Douglas D. von Oiste -- dvonoiste@weitzlux.com -- said
he told the jury Tuesday, Sept. 18  during voir dire his client
was born in 1935, making him 76 or 77 years of age.

"The best outcome is for the parties to reach an agreement.  Even
though the parties were ready for a trial, the best outcome is
when they reach an agreement," Harrison said.

Kreimer was a pipefitter from 1956-1986 for various contractors,
including Johnson Controls, Robert Shaw, EJ Nolan, M.W. Kellogg
Piping, Bechtel, Combustion Engineering, Babcock & Wilcox and
Kaiser Engineering and various industrial and commercial job sites
in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, his suit states.

Von Oiste initiated a series of questions Tuesday in the 2010
lawsuit filed by local asbestos firm Gori and Julian of
Edwardsville.

Ed Burns -- edburns@otmblaw.com -- and Ben Pucci --
bpucci@otmblaw.com -- of O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns in
Chicago represented John Crane Co.  Clifford Hutchinson of K & L
Gates in Dallas and Nicole Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- of
Polsinelli & Shughart in Edwardsville represented Crane Co.

Sara Salger of Gori Julian and Associates and Kyle Beale of Karst
& von Oiste also represented the plaintiff.

The lawsuit states that the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos
fibers should have been anticipated by the defendants.  The
lawsuit also states that defendants agreed and "conspired among
themselves" and with other asbestos manufacturers, distributors,
and trade organizations, to injure the plaintiff.

Randy Gori of Gori Julian and Associates requested an admission of
counsel, Sept. 7 for von Oiste.

According to his Web site, von Oiste, a partner at Karst & von
Oiste, has more than $170 million in jury verdicts, including $110
million in Powers vs. A.O. Smith Corporation; $36 million in
Martin vs. Robert Keasbey Corporation; $18.5 million in Penn vs.
Kerr Corporation; and $5 million in Wallace vs. York Corporation.
He has worked exclusively with asbestos litigation throughout his
career, his site claims.

The case is Madison County case number 10-L-1256.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Finance Committee to Study Chicopee Library Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette DeForge of The Republican reports that The Chicopee City
Council will continue to debate if it should authorize the money
to remove asbestos and gut the former library to determine its
structural integrity.

The council voted 11-2 to send a request to spend $250,000 to its
finance committee for more study.  The money would be spent to do
preliminary work on the building so an engineer can examine the
library.

The proposal is to eventually renovate the library, connect it to
City Hall and use it for school offices.  Before any work is done,
an engineer has to determine if the structure is solid enough for
a second floor to be added in place of the existing mezzanine,
Mayor Michael D. Bissonnette said.

"I'm suggesting we need to get the information.  We don't have a
whole lot of options, we have put it out to bid four times," he
said.

Several restaurant owners have considered buying the library but
found the building unworkable.  The one serious buyer, who wanted
to convert it to a museum, backed out for financial reasons.

Bissonnette asked the City Council several months ago to approve
$160,000 for the same project.  It rejected the expense and since
then construction prices have increased.

The money is to come from the sale of real estate account.

Councilor Jean J. Croteau Jr., spoke in favor of having the work
done, arguing the asbestos will have to be removed even if the
building is sold or demolished.

"If we sell it, we have to sell it clean," he said.  "At some
point we have to deal with this."

Councilor Gerry Roy agreed saying it is important for the School
Department to know if the building is available so they can make
plans.  The school offices are housed in the Helen O'Connell
building, which has structural problems.

But Councilor James K. Tillotson said he feels the $250,000 is the
start of a large amount of money the city will have to pay to
renovate the building and he is not sure if school officials want
to move there.

He said he believes renovations will cost anywhere from $5 to $15
million.

"This is a major enterprise," he said.  "Where we going with this
adventure?"

The School Committee did discuss the issue two weeks ago but has
not taken a vote to endorse the proposal.  Several members said
they were concerned about a lack of parking while others said they
liked the idea of moving downtown.

Bissonnette said he is expecting to purchase a boarding house next
to City Hall and raze it for parking.  The property is owned by
the Valley Opportunity Council, which is working on a plan to
purchase the Kendall Building and eventually vacate the boarding
house.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Says Fennell Lawsuit "Forum Shopping"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison /St. Clair Record reports that the
attorney representing the defendant in a St. Clair County asbestos
case urged the Illinois Supreme Court on Sept. 19 to dismiss the
suit, calling it a "classic case of forum shopping."

Kenneth Halvachs -- khalvachs@boylebrasher.com -- an attorney with
Boyle Brasher in Belleville, told the justices that Walter
Fennell's lawsuit against his client, Illinois Central Railway
Co., has no business being heard in St. Clair County.

To bolster support for his take on the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, Halvachs stressed that Fennell is a lifelong resident
of Mississippi who never specifically alleged that his asbestos-
related injury occurred in St. Clair County.

J. Timothy Eaton -- teaton@shefskylaw.com -- a Chicago attorney
who argued on Fennell's behalf, told the justices that Illinois
Central has the burden of proving that St. Clair County would be
an inconvenient forum and has failed to do so.

Fennell sued the railroad company in 2009, claiming that he
developed respiratory problems as a result of being exposed to
asbestos and other toxic substances during his career with
Illinois Central.

In January, a split panel of the Fifth District Appellate Court
affirmed St. Clair County Judge Lloyd Cueto's denial of Illinois
Central's motion to dismiss.

The majority of the panel determined that Fennell's case did not
present "the type of inherently local controversy that must be
resolved in either Mississippi or Illinois."

One justice, however, dissented, saying that "it is difficult, if
not impossible, to find any nexus to Illinois, let alone St. Clair
County."

Eaton focused a large part of his argument in favor of a St. Clair
County forum on the location of certain documents and witnesses.

He told the justices that one of the reasons why St. Clair County
would be convenient for both sides is because the "Alton
documents" are located there.

Dating back to the 1930s, Eaton said, these documents show that
the railroad company was aware of the hazards related to asbestos
decades ago.

And based on their old age, Eaton said the "Alton documents" are
fragile and as such, should not be removed from St. Clair County.
He also argued that copied documents would not have as much of an
impact on jurors as originals would.

Halvachs said thanks to improved technology, the documents Eaton
called fragile could easily be copied and sent electronically.

He also urged the justices not to buy Eaton's argument for a St.
Clair County forum based on the fact his law office is located
there.

This, Halvachs said, is not an important factor in the court's
analysis of forum and could easily be manipulated.

If counsel's office location was the most important factor in a
forum analysis, Halvachs told the court that "my firm could open
up an office anywhere" it believes would be favorable to its
clients and claim venue is appropriate because his firm has an
office there.

In one of only a handful of questions posed by the justices during
the argument, Justice Ann Burke asked Halvachs about the railroad
company's connection to Illinois.

He said the company has tracks that run through Illinois and an
office in Homewood.  The fact a company does business in Illinois,
however, is not enough to satisfy forum requirements, he said.

In another question related to location, Justice Rita Garman asked
Eaton whether his client's alleged exposure occurred in St. Clair
County.

Eaton told Garman that while his client can't pinpoint the exact
location of his exposure to asbestos and other harmful materials,
it occurred during his career at Illinois Central.

And although Fennell lived in Mississippi, Eaton said Fennell's
job took him to several of the railroad company's buildings and
put him on trains that went through several states.

Regardless of that aspect, Eaton said St. Clair County is an
appropriate forum for several reasons.

In addition to Illinois Central's attorney and the "Alton
documents" being located there, Eaton told the justices that two
important witnesses are located closer to St. Clair County than to
Mississippi.

One, he said, lives in Chicago and the other is based in
Tennessee.

Arguing in favor of a Mississippi forum, Halvachs told the court
that there are at least a dozen potential witnesses that live in
or near Mississippi.

These witnesses are also important, he said, saying they include
Fennell's medical providers, family members and former colleagues.

Eaton, however, claimed that Fennell relied on interrogatories of
a similar suit he brought in Mississippi when making note of
potential witnesses in this case.

He said Fennell wrote in his petition for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court that both sides planned to call some of these
Mississippi witnesses at trial.

"It's made up," Eaton told the justices, saying he never said he
planned to call these potential witnesses.

Garman then asked Eaton if the court should consider Fennell's
Mississippi lawsuit in its analysis.

Fennell was one of 85 plaintiffs in a Mississippi suit, which was
brought in 2002 and dismissed in 2006. All of the plaintiffs in
that suit lived in Mississippi or Louisiana and were current or
former employees of the railroad company.

Eaton said that Fennell's Mississippi case is not significant to
his St. Clair County suit, noting that while he was one of 85
plaintiffs in Mississippi, he filed his Illinois suit alone.  He
also said the record shows the Mississippi suit was dismissed
without prejudice.

Halvachs, however, said the fact Fennell filed a suit in St. Clair
County after a Mississippi court dismissed a similar suit there
shows he was forum shopping.

As the Supreme Court has recognized in past cases, Halvachs said,
forum shopping "should not be condoned."

He also told the justices that allowing the case to proceed in St.
Clair County would force Illinois taxpayers to incur the costs
related to the case of Mississippi residents and would prevent
jurors from viewing the railroad company's premises, if the need
arose during trial.

Eaton told the justices he couldn't foresee the need for jurors to
view the company's premises.

Fennell's case, which garnered amicus briefs from both the
plaintiffs and defense bars, marked the last argument of the day
for the justices.

They are set to hear arguments in three cases on Thursday,
Sept. 20 before bringing the court's September term to a close on
Friday, Sept. 21.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Navy Files $75,000 Suit v. 30 Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Item reports that a Milton man who worked on boilers in
the Navy and at Bucknell University has filed a federal lawsuit
against 30 companies he claims are miners, manufacturers,
processors, importers and retailers of asbestos products.
Bucknell is not a defendant in the suit.

Ronald Batman claims in the complaint filed Tuesday, Sept. 18 in
U.S. Middle District Court his unspecified health problems are
related to his work around asbestos.

While in the Navy from 1965 through 1969 he served as a boiler
technician on three ships and between 1972 and 2010 he worked in
the powerhouse at Bucknell, the document states.

Batman says he repaired and maintained boilers on ships and
maintained a coal-fired boiler and furnace at Bucknell.

The suit accuses the defendants of knowing exposure to asbestos
and asbestos-containing materials was harmful but they failed to
provide him with safe wearing apparel.

He also charges they failed to place adequate warnings on
containers of asbestos, failed to adopt a safety plan and did not
remove or recall products from the workplace.

The complaint does not detail Batman's medical issues other than
it is an asbestos-related disease that has caused him great pain,
medical expenses and loss of wages.  The suit seeks compensatory
damages in excess of $75,000 and unspecified punitive damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assisting Policemen Exposed to Fibro During Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that police officers
assisting firefighters at an alleged clandestine drug lab in
Perth's east have possibly been exposed to asbestos.

On Thursday, Sept. 20 morning, police were called to help at a
house fire in Maddington and found items that could be used to
manufacture methylamphetamine.

The house was made of asbestos and six police officers may have
been exposed to the potentially deadly fibers.

They were put through a decontamination process at the scene,
police said.

A 24-year-old man has been charged with attempting to manufacture
a prohibited drug and will appear before Armadale Magistrates
Court on a date to be announced.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Handlers at Old Thatcher Plant to Be Sentenced
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chattanoogan.com reports that an EPA expert testified
Thursday, Sept. 20 in Federal Court in Chattanooga, Tenn., that
sloppy handling of asbestos at the old Standard Coosa Thatcher
plant in Ridgedale could have caused "death or serious bodily
harm."

Tim Frederick acknowledged he got that phrase from government
attorneys seeking jail terms for those involved in the 2003-2004
debacle that brought on a frenzied and expensive federal-led
cleanup.

Judge Curtis Collier is expected to set the sentences for Don
Fillers, James Mathis and David Wood when the hearing sometime
after it resumes.  The hearing lasted all day Thursday with
prosecutors and attorneys arguing over whether the sentences
should be "enhanced."

Judge Collier ruled in favor of the defendants on several points
on Thursday, Sept. 20, limiting the range of their sentencing
guidelines.

Authorities said earlier that Fillers faces a maximum 20 years and
the other two defendants five years.

The only attorney who spoke little at the hearing was former
prosecutor Gary Humble, who represents Watkins Street Project LLC,
the business name used by brothers Gary and Don Fillers to buy the
defunct yarn mill in 2003.  He told the judge the firm "is worse
than broke.  They're upside down on their mortgage."

Gary Fillers was also charged and he was given a six-month house
arrest sentence early on in the case.  He died a month ago at the
age of 74.

Gary Fillers had given a statement in which he said buying the old
mill was the idea of his brother, who operates Chattanooga
Hardwood.  He said his brother told him they could salvage items
from the old mill and make a million dollars.

When they bought the mill "it was full of furniture, file cabinets
and yarn.  It was like they had closed the door and gone home,"
one attorney said.

The government charged that the Fillers brother spent as little as
possible on hiring an asbestos removal firm and that much asbestos
was left at the site.  That was handled carelessly by workers
under Mathis and Wood, it was charged.

Prosecutor Matthew Morris said untrained workers paid low wages
handled asbestos by hand without any kind of protection, sometimes
sweeping it up or tossing it from a second floor.

Defense attorneys argued there was no evidence that clouds of dust
from the site contained dangerous asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Temporarily Closes Mackay Park
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a public park near Batemans Bay on the New
South Wales far south coast has been temporarily closed after a
hazardous material was found at the site.

The Eurobodalla Shire says asbestos has been identified at Mackay
Park.

The Council's general manager, Paul Anderson, says the public will
be banned from the park, forcing a weekend football final to be
relocated at Hanging Rock.

He says immediate action has been taken to ensure the community's
safety.

"It's actually been found in a stock pile of material near the
playing fields," Mr. Anderson said.

"We've done some testing.

"We've also done some inspections of the playing fields themselves
and there's no evidence of any material being on the playing field
surface, but it is in a location which is nearby."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Victim's Daughter Organizes Fund Raiser
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate White of The Charleston Gazette relates that Richard Owen
Dorsey would be embarrassed seeing his picture on banners and
fliers meant to raise awareness about mesothelioma, his daughter
said.

"But he'd be proud of what I'm doing," said Missy Dorsey Bowles.
"He knows, once I start something, you can't stop me."

Stopping isn't something Bowles has even considered. With an
annual event, now in its third year, she's raised thousands of
dollars for mesothelioma research -- the asbestos related cancer
that took her father's life.

Bowles, 37, can recall the exact date her father started feeling
sick, the day he was diagnosed and the short time later when he
died at age 65.  It all happened within eight months.

"When he was diagnosed, he said, 'I've never been around
asbestos'," Bowles recalled, "but once we started thinking about
it, he had."

Dorsey had worked for Union Carbide, FMC and the water company in
the early 1970s, according to his daughter.

"He dug up and drilled on all those old water pipes that had
asbestos, with no protection on," she said.

Her father's mesothelioma diagnosis came on June 13, 2008, after
dozens of tests ruled out other possible problems.

"When the doctor said it was meso, all I knew about it was that
there wasn't a cure and that I had seen a lot of commercials about
it on TV," Bowles said.

The next month, on July 9, he passed away.

"When you have a new baby and you're fighting with losing your
dad, you think, 'Oh my God, I have to do something'," said Bowles,
who gave birth to her son earlier that year.  "I had attended a
walk for children with cancer and thought that was something I
could do.

"But I couldn't just stop at the walk," she said with a laugh.

Her event, "ROD's Benefit for Meso," a 5K walk scheduled on
Saturday Sept. 22 in Eleanor, also will be open to runners this
year.  The event features a gospel sing, catered lunch, a silent
auction and raffle prizes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fake Specialist Gets Suspended Jail Sentence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fisk at Thisislocallondon.co.uk reports that doctoring an
air safety test and putting people at risk of being exposed to
asbestos fibers has landed a company director with a suspended
jail sentence.

Peter Horrey, of Jackson Road, Bromley, had been hired to take out
all the asbestos insulation from the boiler room of a property but
failed to effectively clean and decontaminate the room.

As well as being unlicensed to remove asbestos, he left visible
fibres that were a danger to the householders and the plumbers,
who were due to start work on the boiler.

After he was finished, an analyst who went to take an air test
provided him with a certificate clearly showing the site had
failed.

But Horrey provided a doctored report to the owners saying it had
passed the test and was safe for them to re-enter, which they did.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Horrey, who did
the work under his company name of Absolute Asbestos, under the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Horrey pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to three breaches
of the asbestos regulations between July 18 and 29 last year at a
property in Greencroft Gardens, South Hampstead.

He was given six months imprisonment for each of the three
breaches, to run concurrently, which is suspended for two years.

As well as the suspended sentence he has been electronically
tagged for three months and must complete 300 hours unpaid
community service.

And he has been ordered to pay GBP10,160 costs and pay GBP11,340
compensation to the Greencroft Gardens residents association.

After sentencing HSE inspector Dominic Elliss, who investigated
the incident, said he was appalled by Horrey's reckless disregard
for safety in the full knowledge of the dangers caused by exposure
to asbestos.

"He clearly set out to deceive these householders but, worse than
that, he was apparently content to put them and the plumbers who
had been booked shortly afterwards at risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Republican Senator Calls Warren a "Hired Gun"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Anderson at Boston.com reports that Democrat Elizabeth Warren
left a big opening when she failed to tell her side of the story
of the legal work she did for Travelers Insurance in a case
involving asbestos victims.  Republican Senator Scott Brown lost
no time using that lapse against her.

At a morning press conference following their first debate, Brown
called Warren's claim that she had actually worked for asbestos
victims "outrageous."  Describing the Harvard law professor as a
"hired gun", he said Travelers retained her "to get them off the
hook for settlements sought by victims of asbestos poisoning."
Warren, he charged, is trying to mislead voters into thinking of
her as an advocate for the little guy, when "there is only one
person who has taken the side of big corporations against working
families and that's Elizabeth Warren."

But David D. McMorris, an attorney whose law firm represents
asbestos victims, including those in the Travelers' case, said
Brown is the candidate who is misleading the public.  He called
the senator's attack on Warren "completely dishonest".

McMorris and several union representatives, including Francis
Boudrow, the business manager of Asbestos Workers Union Local 6,
spoke to the media after Brown's press conference at his South
Boston campaign headquarters.  They were there to defend Warren
and support her argument that she was helping victims, not hurting
them, when she represented Travelers.

"He's distorting her role," said McMorris, in a telephone call
after Brown's press conference.  "Clearly, he's doing it on
purpose.  He's a lawyer . . . He's either a very lazy or inept
lawyer, or he's lying."

But the case is complicated.

As reported earlier by Globe reporter Noah Bierman, Travelers
hired Warren to represent the insurance company in its fight to
gain permanent immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits; in
exchange for that immunity, the insurance company said it would
establish a $500 million trust for current and future victims of
asbestos poisoning.  Warren succeeded in that mission,
successfully arguing Travelers case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
She was paid $212,000 by Travelers from 2008 to 2010.

However, after she left the case, a separate court ruled that
Travelers did not have to pay out the money and it never has.  As
one judge saw it, Travelers got "something for nothing."

McMorris argues that Warren was hired "to defend the integrity of
the settlement.  She won."  What happened afterwards was out of
her hands, he said.

That may be.  But it's now in the hands of an opponent who is
making it clear he will use every weapon available to keep his
job.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delton Board Approves East Adam St. Abatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Krejci of Wisconsin Dells Events reports that the Lake Delton
Village Board approved hiring a company to extract asbestos from
the former M&G Travel Mart and two adjacent homes on East Adams
Street at a meeting Thursday, Sept. 20 at a minimum cost of
$9,995.

The village approved having the work done as long as the Baraboo
National Bank, a lender on the property, approves taking down the
now-vacant gas station.

Jack Roloff, assistant zoning administrator, said the lending
institution had reservations about razing the gas station.

Lake Delton Village Board Trustee Tom Diehl said he would speak
with the bank so it is in agreement with the plans to demolish the
station.

Village Clerk, Treasurer and Coordinator Kay Mackesey said after
the meeting the price of the work to be done by TMC Improvements
in Wisconsin Dells is $9,995 but could increase by $2,500 if the
refrigerator and counters are removed.

Village President John Webb said after the meeting instead of
issuing a razing order, the village is working with the property
owner to demolish the properties and the cost will be charged to
either the current owner or paid for at the time of a sale of the
property.

Roloff said the village received one response of four inquiries by
companies that would do the work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farmer Warned for Moving Dumped Fibro
------------------------------------------------------
Shropshirestar.com reports that when farmer Neale Dalton found
dangerous asbestos dumped on his land he did the responsible thing
and reported it to Shropshire Council.

But he was told that as it was his property it was his
responsibility.  And he was warned that because he had moved it a
couple of meters nearer the verge, he could himself be prosecuted
by the authority for fly-tipping.

Mr. Dalton, who farms near Shifnal, said "We had some brick-ends
recently which I was able to get rid of but this lot includes
asbestos which is a hazard.

Councilor Martin Bennett, Shropshire Council's cabinet member
responsible for environmental maintenance, said: "We have tried to
work with him to resolve this.  We did advise that if he moved the
waste onto public land that this would also be classed as fly-
tipping, which is illegal.

"Unfortunately he went against our officer's advice and moved the
waste.

"We have therefore asked him to arrange for it to be moved as soon
as possible and have offered to provide the name of specialist
contractors who can help with this."

The NFU is calling on farmers to report fly-tipping to the union.
Spokesman Sarah Faulkner said: "Generally speaking, if you are the
victim of a crime you are not expected to pay the criminal's
costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burglers Have To Be Decontaminated After Break In
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Roberts of The Argus reports that three men have been branded
"Britain's thickest thieves" after breaking into a building
riddled with asbestos.

The trio, who have now undergone decontamination, forced their way
into the deserted post office in Ship Street, Brighton, at 1.30pm
Sept. 21, ignoring health and safety signs warning them about the
danger.

Police were called and the men were arrested but before they could
be interviewed they had to be decontaminated to ensure asbestos
particles were removed.

Traders condemned the thieves as fools, with Stuart Wilkie, of
Brighton Lanes Traders stating: "Are these Britain's thickest
thieves?

"It is ludicrous.  Going into the decontamination unit serves them
right.  It is poetic justice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Law Firm Lists Most At-Risk Occupations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Workplace exposure to asbestos is widely accepted as the leading
cause of all mesothelioma cases diagnosed in the US each year.
The widespread use of asbestos during the twentieth century
exposed millions of workers and their families and increased their
risk of contracting cancers and other asbestos-related diseases.
Between 1940 and 1979, it is estimated that nearly 27.5 million
people were exposed to asbestos at work.  These workers were
exposed to asbestos in a variety of industrial and construction
environments.  It has been estimated that approximately 900,000
workers have been exposed to asbestos from automobile brake and
clutch work alone.

In 1970, Congress passed regulations declaring that employers must
take steps to protect their employees from known hazards and
exposure to chemical agents, such as asbestos.  Unfortunately,
many manufactures chose to ignore or minimally construe these
regulations and continued endangering lives, resulting in many
thousands of preventable cases of mesothelioma.

Workers were exposed to asbestos in a wide range of job sites and
trades, ranging from ships to the manufacturing and construction
industries.  Indeed, it is estimated that nearly 1.3 million
workers in the construction industry are exposed to dangerous
levels of asbestos each year.  Although widespread use of asbestos
is outlawed in the United States today, the threat of asbestos
exposure still looms.  For many workers, asbestos exposure is
still possible for those who have occupations and work in
buildings that were erected or renovated prior to the ban.
Below is a list of occupations that have documented accounts of
asbestos exposures and past incidents of mesothelioma cancer:

Abatement Worker
Acoustical Worker
Aeronautical Engineer
Aerospace Mechanics
Air Conditioning Mechanic
Air Conditioning/Heating Mfg. Worker
Aircraft Mechanics
Aluminum Worker
Apprentice Fitter
Asbestos Furniture Worker
Asbestos Plant Workers
Asbestos Worker
Ash Handler
Ash Puller
Assembler
Assembly Line Worker
Auto Mechanic
Auto Mechanics
Aviation Electrician
Aviation Mechanic
B Operator
Bag Opener
Bagger
Bale Press Operator
Bale Roller
Bar Shearman
Batter operator
Beamer
Beaterman
Belt Operator
Binder Changer
Blacksmith
Blaster
Blender
Boat Builder
Boat Operator
Boiler Coverers
Boiler Inspector
Boiler Maker
Boiler Mechanic Helper
Boiler Operator
Boiler Tender
Boiler Washer
Boiler Worker
Boilermaker
Boilermaker Helper
Boilermaker Supervisor
Boilermaker Worker
Boilers Mfg. Plant Worker
Boilertender
Bolier Tester
Braiser
Brake and Clutch Repairman
Brake Line and Shoe Installer
Brake Line and Shoe Repairman
Brake Mechanic
Brake Mechanics
Brake/Clutch Mfg Worker
Brakeman
Brick Mason
Brick Room Helper
Bricklayers
Bulldozer Operators
Burner
Butler Pit Operator
ByProducts Operator
Cabinetmakers
Cable Puller
Cable Splicer
Captain
Car Loader
Car Repairman
Car Shop Workers
Carder of Asbestos Yarn
Carpenter
Cast Ship Mixer
Caster
Caulker
Ceiling Tile Installer
Cell Renewal Leader
Cement Finisher
Cete Operator
Checker at Insulation Warehouse
Checkers, Examiners & Inspectors, Manufact.
Chemical Operator
Chemical Technicians
Chemical Worker
Chemist
Chief Engineer
Chief Operator in Pump Room
Chipper
Civil Engineer
Cleaner
Cleanup Man
Clothing Ironers and Pressers
Clutch Assembler
Coal Engineer
Combine Shop
Commercial Elect. Equiq.,Appliance Wkr
Compact Operator
Compound Mixer
Construction Crew
Construction Inspector
Construction Laborer
Construction Mechanic
Construction Worker
Cooker (pulp)
Coppersmith
Core Room Worker
CrackOff
Crane Operator
Crane Repairman
Crane, Derrick and Hoist Men
Crude Still Foreman
Crusher
Crusher Operator
Cutter
Deck Engine Mechanic
Deckhand
Demolition Worker
Design Engineer
Design Specialist
Die Cast Operator
Diesel Mechanic
Dishwasher
Dockman
Doff Crew
Draftsmen
Draw Twist
Drill Press Operatives
Drill Repairman
Driller
Dry Cleaner
Dry Dock
Dry Wall Taper
Dryer Foreman
Dryer Operator
Dryer Operator
Drywall Hanger
Drywall Tapers
Electric Power Linemen & Cable Men
Electric Tester
Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Electrical Inspector
Electrical Technician
Electricians
Electronic Mechanic
Electronic Technician
Elevator Installation & Service
Engine Fitter
Engine Maintenance Man
Engine Room Mechanic
Engine Room Steam Crew
Engine Room supervisor
Engine Room Wiper
Engineers
Engineman
Equipment Operator
Erector
Estimator
Excavating Machine Operators
Fabricator
Fettler Clay Plant (tends furnace)
Field Engineer
Field Operator Supervisor
Field Worker
Filers, Polishers, Sanders, Buffers
Final Construction Inspector
Fireman
Firewatcher
Fitter
Flame Cutter
Fleet Worker
Floor Hand
Floor Tile and Linoleum Layer
Foiler
Foremen
Forge Men and Hammer Men
Forger
Fork Lift Operator
Foundry Workers
Freight and Material handlers
Furnace Fireman
Furnace Helper
Furnace Installer
Furnace Machinist
Furnace Manufacturer
Furnace Men, Smelter-Men & Pourers
Furnace Worker
Galvinizer
Garage Workers and Gas Station Attendants
Gas Welder
Gauger
General Foreman
General Laborer
Generator/Transformer Mfg Worker
Glass Blower
Grinding Machine Operatives
Hairdressers and Cosmetologists
Head Operator
Heat Treater
Heating Technician
Heavy Equipment Mechanics
Heavy Equipment Operator
Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic
Helper
Hod Carrier
Hopper Loader
Hot Blast Man
Hot Top Maker
Household Appliances Installers and Mechanics
Household Residents of Exposed Workers
Hull Department Supervisor
Hull Foreman
Hull Maitenance Technician
HVAC Installer
HVAC Serviceman
Hydraulic mechanic
Industrial Engineer
Industrial Incinerator Worker
Industrial Plant Workers
Inspectors
Installer
Installer Refrigeration/HVAC equipment
Instrument Fitter
Instrument Technician
Insulation
Insulation Machinist
Insulator Helper
Insulators
Inventory Clerk
Iron Pourer
Iron Worker
Janitor
Job & Die Setters
Joiner
Kiln (Tender/Builder)
Kiln Operator
Kiln Worker
Lab Technician
Laboratory Technician
Laborers
Lagger
Lathe Operator
Lather
Lathers
Lay operator
Lead Gauger
Leader Man
Leadman
Licensed Electrical Engineer
Licensed Engineer
Liftman
Lineman
Loader
Loader
Locomotive Engineers
Loftsman
Longshoremen and Stevedores
Loom Fixers
Machine Operatives, Misc. Specified
Machine Operator
Machinist
Machinist Helper
Machinist Mates
Machinists
Magazine Operator
Maintenance Foreman
Maintenance
Maintenance Electrician
Maintenance Man
Maintenance Mechanic
Maintenance Supervisor
Maintenance Workers
Managers and Superintendents; Building
Manufacturing
Marine Bull Wiper
Marine Carpenter
Marine Electrician
Marine Engineer
Marine Machinist
Marine Painter
Marker
Mason
Masonry Workers
Material Analyst
Material Handler
Material Runner
Material Scheduler
Material Supervisor
Materials Clerk
Mechanic
Mechanic Repairman
Mechanic's Helper
Mechanical Craftsman
Mechanical Engineer
Mechanical Fitter
Mechanics & Repairmen; Aircraft
Mechanics Mate
Melt Shop
Merchant Marine Seamen
Merchant Marines
Merchant Sea Chipper
Metal Cleaner
Metal Lather
Metal Lathers
Metallurgical Inspector
Mill Operator
Millman
Millwrights
Miner
Missile and Aircraft Production Workers
Mixing Operatives
Mold Loft Worker
Mold Maker
Mold Man
Molders
Molds Manufacturer
Moulder
Mud Man
Muller Operator
Naval Architect
Naval Engineer
Naval Plant Maintenance
Navy Personnel
Navy Yard Workers / Yardbirds
Neon Sign Manufacturer
Neon Signs Worker
Neon Tube Bender
Nozzle Setter
Nuclear Inspector
Nuclear Power Inspector
Officers, Pilots and Pursers; Ship
Oil burner Serviceman
Oil Field Worker
Oil Refinery Workers
Oiler
Open Hearth Worker
Operating Engineers
Operations Specialist
Operator of High Temp Machines
Ordnance Equipment Mechanic
Outside Machinist
Oven Operator
Oven/Furnace Mfg. Worker
Pack Hauler
Packer/Loader
Painters and Sculptors
Painters, Construction and Maintenance
Palletizer
Papermill Workers
Paperworkers
Patcher
Pattern Maker
Personnel and Labor Relations Workers
Physical Tester
Piece Work Counter
Pipe Carrier
Pipe Coverers
Pipe Cutter
Pipe Fitter
Pipe Foreman
Pipe Grinder
Pipe Hanger
Pipe Insulator
Pipe Layer
Pipe Layer of Water and Sewer Lines
Pipe Racker
Pipe Tester
Pipe Welder
Pipecoverer
Pipefitter
Pipefitter's helper
Pipefitters
Pipemill worker
Plant Operator
Plantworkers
Plasterer
Plasterers
Plater
Platerer Tender
Plumbers
Pneumatic Helper
Pneumatic Tool Operator
Poolman
Pot Fitter
Pot Operator
Pot Rebuilder
Pot Room Attendant (ironsteel)
Pot Room Production
Pot Tender
Power Engineer
Power Meter Installer
Power Plant Worker
Power Plant Workers
Powerhouse Employee
Powerhouse Laborer
Powerhouse Mechanic
Powerhouse Operator
Powerhouse Worker
Powerhouse Workers
Press Operator
Pressman
Process Controlman
Process Operator
Production Checker
Production Controller
Production Engineer
Production Operator
Production Worker
Pump Room Operator
Pumpman
Puncher
Pusher
Qualified Mechanic Engine Department
Quality Control Inspector
Quarterman
Radiological Technician
Railroad Workers
Reactor Plant Worker
Refinery Lab Technician
Refinery Laborer
Refinery Operator
Refrigeration Engineer
Residents of towns with former Asbestos Manufacturing Plants
Rice Parmer
Rigger
Rip Out
Ripout
Rivet Bulker
Riveter
Road Machine Operators
Rodman
Role Press Operator
Roll Turner
Rollers and Finishers
Roofers
Room Worker
Rosin Shed Worker
Rough Neck
Rough Necker
Roundhouse Worker
Roustabout
RR Car Construction Worker
RR Fire Box Installer
Runner
Rust Machine Operator
S/Y Worker
Sailors
Sailors and Deckhands
Sales Engineer
Salesman
Sampler
Sandblaster
Saw Operator
Sawyers
Scaffold Foreman
Scaleman
Scaler
Scarfer
Scheduler
Scrap Classifier
Senior Analyst
Senior Bay Foreman
Shake Out Operator
Shearman
Sheet Metal Mechanic
Sheet Metal Worker
Sheetmetal Fabricator
Sheetmetal Mechanic
Sheetmetal Supervisor
Sheetmetal Workers
Shift Foreman
Shift Operator
Ship cleaner
Ship Fitter
Ship Inspector
Ship Maintenance Mechanic
Ship Repair
Ship Repairman
Ship Room Operations
Ship Scaler
Ship Superintendent
Ship Supervisor
Ship Surveyor
Ship's Inspector
Ship's Test Operator
Shipbuilder
Shipfitters Clerk
Shipping
Shiptender
Shipwright
Shipyard Clerk
Shipyard Dump Keeper
Shipyard Laborer
Shipyard Tooler
Shipyard Workers
Shop Repairman
Shrinker
Sketcher
Skimmer
Slagger
Soundproofing Installer
Specifications Supervisor
Spinner Cutter
Spinner of Asbestos Cloths
Sprayer
Sprinkler Fitter
Sr. Design Specialist
Stationary Engineers
Steam Engineer
Steam Machinist
Steamfitters
Steel Checker
Steel Dipper
Steel Erector
Steel Pourer
Steel Worker
Steelfitter
Steelman
Steelworker
Stevedore
Still Cleaner
Stock Preparation
Stoker
Storekeeper
Storeroom Clerk
Stove Tender
Straightener
Striker
Stripheater
Structural Metal Craftsmen
Submarine Engineerman
Superintendant
Supervisor
Sweeper
Sweeper
Tacker
Tank Cleaner
Tank Tester
Tankerman
Tapers
Teachers: Elementary, College and University
Technicians
Telephone Installers and Repairmen
Test Engineer
Textile Operatives
Third Engineer
Third Operating Mechanic
Tile Layer
Tile Mechanic
Tile Setters
Tinner
Tinsmiths
Tire Cord Operations
Tool and Die Makers
Tool Control
Tool Maker
Tool Room Machinist
Tool Room Mechanic
Tow Motor Driver
Tower Crane Operator
Trackman
Tractor Operator
Transport man
Trouble Shooter
Truck Driver
Truck Loader
Turbine Boot
Turbine Mechanic
Turbine Tester
Turnaround Man
Turnaround/Production Service Operator
Turner
Utilityman
Ventilator
Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles Worker
Warehouse Man
Warehouseman,Stockman
Watch Foreman
Water Tender
Weavers
Weighmaster
Weld Checker
Welder Instructor
Welder's Helper
Welders
Welding Foreman
Winding Operatives
Wiper
Wireman
Worker in Railroad Repair Shop
Working Foreman
XRay Operator
Yard Laborer
Zone Mechanic

Occupation Fields Exposed to Asbestos:

Aerospace/Aviation
Automotive
Construction
Electrical
Mechanical
Iron & Steel
Manufacturing
Military
Railroad
Shipyard
Textile
Utilities

Family Mesothelioma

Friends and family of workers exposed to asbestos are also at
increased risk of developing mesothelioma.  The extreme toxicity
of asbestos fibers means industrial and trade workers' families
may develop mesothelioma through coming into contact with fibers
and particles that adhered to the worker's clothing, shoes, skin
and hair.  This type of second hand exposure to asbestos is known
as paraoccupational exposure.  Since microscopic asbestos fibers
can cling to almost anything with which they come in contact, it
is possible for someone with asbestos on them to track it into
their home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Immunotherapy Gets $104 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hall of The Mesothelioma Center reports that software
billionaire Dietmar Hopp recently invested nearly $104 million in
a biopharmaceutical company working on treatments for non-small
cell lung cancer and other diseases.

Hopp, a German business executive, put his money with CureVac, a
German-based company developing Phase II cancer therapies.

His investment is notable because of its size, given that
CureVac's research is still in the clinical stages.  The money is
coming from Hopp's investment company, dievini Hopp BioTech
Holding.

"CureVac's RNA-technology and products have the potential to
create a novel class of therapeutics for the treatment of many
different diseases," said Friedrich von Bohlen, Ph.D, chairman of
CureVac's board of directors.  "We see strong market potential
which we expect will materialize through continued pipeline
development and collaborations in the industry."

Nearly 160,000 new cases of non-small cell lung cancer are
diagnosed annually in the United States.

Non-Traditional Lung Cancer Treatment

CureVac's treatment method for lung cancer deviates from and
compliments traditional approaches because the company uses mRNA
vaccines, a modification of the naturally-found biomolecules RNA
that can be used for therapeutic purposes.

Hopp's investment will offer an opportunity for the company to
improve testing strategies and development processes of these
vaccines.

The company's vaccines include RNActive and RNAdjuvant, both of
which are immunotherapy treatments utilizing RNA technology.
Immunotherapy is the manipulation of a person's immune system to
help the body fight disease.

CureVac's lung cancer vaccine, CV9201, is in Phase II of a
clinical trial. It is being tested within non-small cell lung
cancer patients who previously received chemotherapy and or
radiotherapy.

The company said the vaccine was "safe, well-tolerated and
biologically active."

The attractiveness of immunotherapy as a non-small cell lung
cancer treatment appears to be growing. Large pharmaceutical
companies such as Bristol-Myers Squibb are investing significant
resources into studies and trials, a switch from the days when
doctors questioned the viability of the treatment lung cancer.
Study: Immunotherapy Works for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

A 2012 study involving a meta-analysis of 12 controlled clinical
trials affirmed that immunotherapy can work effectively for non-
small cell lung cancer, particularly in advanced stages.

CureVac's benchmarks for its vaccines' performances are measured
according to speed, versatility, flexibility and stability.  The
company measures analyzes the stability of the targeted antigens,
which are foreign substances used to influence the immune system,
in addition to the strength of expression of these antigens within
the body.

"We have continuously seen strong and consistent data from
CureVac's RNActive and RNAdjuvant programs in the past," said von
Bohlen.

The company is prioritizing the development of its prostate cancer
vaccine,  known as CV9103, over its lung cancer therapy vaccine.
Still, CureVac remains dedicated to identifying the right
treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, which is the most common
type of lung cancer within the United States.

Company representatives anticipate a more-developed version of the
non-small cell lung cancer vaccine within the next few years.
Limited Funding for Lung Cancer Research

Despite a longer product roadmap for its lung cancer vaccine,
CureVac can leverage its investment to increase research in an
area that is notably disenfranchised by limited research funding.

According to the National Lung Cancer Partnership, funding for
lung cancer research falls far behind prostate, breast and
colorectal cancers, even though the number of deaths from lung
cancer exceed the total deaths from all three cancers, combined.

This lack of research funding is evident through the limited
progression into treatments for this cancer.

In the early 1970s, the five-year survival rate for lung cancer
was approximately 12 percent.  Nearly fifty years later, this
figure has only increased to 16 percent.

During this same time, the five-year survival rate for breast
cancer increased from 75 percent to 90 percent.

According to the National Lung Cancer Partnership.

Federal funding per death is lowest for lung cancer compared to
breast, prostate and colorectal cancers.

The causes of lung cancer, smoking, asbestos and radon exposure,
are well-documented, yet a full-comprehension of how the cancer
manifests and how to best treat it has eluded researchers for
years.

To clarify the magnitude of this cancer, lung cancer deaths
account for nearly thirty percent of all cancer deaths.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Future of Asbestos Town Discussed
--------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Peritz of The Globe and Mail reports that the sign by the
side of the highway is hard to miss: ASBESTOS.  No, it's not a
health warning to motorists about hazardous material ahead.

It's the name of a proud community in southern Quebec, waging a
fight to survive in an increasingly lonely stand against the
world.

Asbestos has become a mineral with a dubious reputation and a
doubtful future, and its namesake town faces a similar fate.
Medical experts link asbestos to cancer.  Countries worldwide ban
it and Canadians rip it out of their walls.  And now, in the space
of less than four weeks, formerly staunch political allies in
Ottawa and Quebec City have abruptly jettisoned their support for
the asbestos industry.

Yet here in the town that asbestos created, where a onetime
miracle fiber made fortunes, built schools and enriched hard-
working families, embattled residents defend asbestos the way a
parent defends a misbehaving child.  It's theirs, they know it
well, and there's no way it can be as bad as everyone says.

"Go ahead, you can touch it," Pierrette Th‚roux says as she shows
off a chunk of asbestos displayed proudly on her desk.  The
president of the local historical society scoffs at the dire
warnings about the white mineral.  "Don't worry, it won't give you
cancer.  It won't make you blind either."

Asbestos is impossible to ignore in this Eastern Townships
community of about 7,000, two hours' drive east of Montreal.  It
defines the town's landscape, its past and its very existence.
The tailings from a century of mining have created fortress-like
hills at the edge of town.  The massive open-pit mine in the heart
of the community is deep enough to swallow the Eiffel Tower; it's
an eerie place today, silent except for a desolate wind whistling
through its maw.

Like virtually everyone in town, Ms. Th‚roux believes the
worldwide campaign against asbestos is misguided.  The mantra here
is that the mineral is safe if handled properly.

"We're treated like idiots because we defend chrysotile," Ms.
Th‚roux says, referring to the type of asbestos mined in Quebec.
"On the contrary, we defend it because we know it."

The belief is sincere, but it runs up against the harsh realities
of the Third World exports on which the industry relies.  To
critics, shipping asbestos to developing countries that can't
ensure health safeguards amounts to a moral stain on Canada's
name.

Belatedly, political leaders seem to be coming around to the same
view, displaying a sudden change of heart after years of
unstinting support for the wobbly industry.  Last week, federal
Industry Minister Christian Paradis said Canada was dropping its
long-standing opposition to asbestos's inclusion on the list of
hazardous materials under United Nations guidelines.  The
announcement came after Quebec Premier Pauline Marois pledged
during last month's election campaign to cancel a $58-million
government loan to revive Asbestos's Jeffrey Mine.

The one-two punch could permanently knock out Canada's asbestos
industry, the last vestiges of which are in Quebec.  But officials
in Asbestos are soldiering on defiantly, vowing to reopen the
Jeffrey Mine and press their case with the new PQ government.

"If you want to invest in zero risk, that doesn't exist," Asbestos
Mayor Hugues Grimard says.  "What about cigarettes?  Or cars, and
planes?  Are we going to ban those?"

Mr. Grimard welcomes government promises of financial help for
Asbestos and nearby Thetford Mines to help diversify their
economies, but, in the meantime, 500 jobs related to the asbestos
industry hang in the balance, he says.

"I'm okay with minimizing risk, but we have the right to earn a
living in Quebec," the mayor says.  "It's the future of the region
that we're talking about -- not just a company."

Other towns in the world, saddled with a name associated with a
life-threatening disease, might have changed it.  Asbestos
considered a name change but refused.  "We're proud of our
history," Mr. Grimard says.  "It's not by changing our name that
we'll change our identity."

That identity was forged in the fibre whose resilience and fire
resistance earned it the title of "white gold."  In the industry's
heyday, asbestos particles were so thick in town that a child like
Gaston Boss‚ would write his name into the white layer of asbestos
that had settled on his bedroom dresser each morning.

Mr. Boss‚ went on to work for 43 years in the local asbestos mill.
About four years ago, he felt he couldn't breathe; he was
diagnosed with asbestosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling tiny
asbestos particles.

Mr. Boss‚ remains an ardent supporter of asbestos mining
nonetheless, and wants to see the mine resume operations.

"If I could, I'd return to work again today," the 80-year-old
says. As for asbestos's detractors, "I think they're crazy."

Today, Asbestos is no longer the boom town that Mr. Boss‚ knew.
It's a place where working-age men like Jean-Guy Doyon, unemployed
since he was laid off from the Jeffrey Mine, drinks coffee at the
town shopping centre in the middle of the afternoon.  "We are the
Gaulois," he said, comparing Asbestos residents to the ancient
Gauls who stood up to the Romans.  "We feel like we're alone
against the world."

There were once 10 elementary schools in Asbestos. Now there are
two.  The population that once topped 10,000 has shrunk by a
third.  A nice home with a yard can be had for under $100,000, and
seniors' residences are taking over former grade schools.  The
town of Asbestos may have kept its name, but firms that deal with
the outside world -- like local trucking company Transport
Asbestos Eastern -- removed the word Asbestos from its name and
trucks long ago.

The town of Asbestos hitched its fortunes to a maverick product,
and a younger generation is already seeking its prospects
elsewhere.  On the sidewalk outside an adult-education school,
young students taking a smoking break say they're not sticking
around Asbestos.  "There are no more jobs here because they say
asbestos is toxic.  For me, it's pretty much over," says 18-year-
old Alex Daudelin, who plans to look for work in the Northwest
Territories or northern Quebec.

Maxime Blake, 24, says virtually his entire high-school class has
left Asbestos.  He says the mine served his grandfather well, with
steady and well-paying work, and even if he'd like to see it
return, today's generation isn't banking on its future.  Mr.
Blake, who's expecting his second child this winter, is pursuing a
career as a chef and plans to leave Asbestos.

"Asbestos is becoming a ghost town," he said at the restaurant
where he works as a cook.  "Without the mine, there's no future
here."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From UN Headquarters
---------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports a silent killer that stalked Nikita
Khrushchev, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro and other world leaders as
they gave historic speeches has been exhumed from the United
Nations Headquarters.

Enough asbestos to bury a football field in more than 5 meters
(16 feet) of lethal blue dust has been extracted from the building
during a US$2 billion plus renovation aiming to turn it into a
clean, green Manhattan landmark, according to the chief architect.

World leaders who gather at the annual U.N. debate next week will
see a gleaming modernist skyscraper, far from the gutted building
they visited last year.

Tinted windows put on the outside and office occupancy sensors
inside will help cut energy use by half. Rainwater harvesting and
low-flow toilets will reduce water consumption by nearly two
thirds. Carbon emissions will be cut by 45 percent.

And for the stylists, the building's 1950s and sixties fake-
leather naugahyde furniture has been brought back to life to give
some floors the air of a "Mad Men" set.

The East River tower, designed by an international team including
Brazil's Oscar Niemeyer and French-Swiss legend Le Corbusier, is
marking its 60th anniversary and has long needed an injection of
architectural botox.

A white plastic sheet covers the leaking General Assembly dome,
which will be the next stage of the project.

The headquarters was built at a time when asbestos was ubiquitous,
according to Michael Adlerstein, the preservation architect
leading the diplomatic and technical exploit.

"It was put on like mayonnaise. It was put on every pipe, every
wall," he told AFP.

Had Soviet leader Khrushchev banged his shoe a bit harder during
his angry 1960 speech to the General Assembly, had Palestinian
icon Arafat fired the gun he held in his landmark 1974 address,
the asbestos might have loosened.

But Adlerstein, who has also worked on the renovation of the
nearby Statue of Liberty and of the Taj Mahal in India, stressed
that the dust has been taken out in an "absolutely safe" operation
that passed thousands of air quality tests.

The dust notorious for causing mesothelioma cancer is just one of
many challenges tackled. There was also the task of getting debris
out and hundreds of construction workers in each day, all while
presidents and ministers carried on daily meetings.

"The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are wonderful monuments,
but unlike the U.N. you could close them, you could do the work,"
said Adlerstein.

Electric and water pipes have regularly been cut by accident as
the U.N. Security Council and other bodies meet. "You get quite an
abrupt reaction from the people who are trying to run a meeting
and their power goes off. It is far more complicated than anything
I have attempted to do in terms of an historic site," he added.

The Security Council moved to a temporary home in the basement.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was exiled to a prefabricated
office in the grounds of the complex.

Now the around 3,300 U.N. staff are moving back into the 39-floor
skyscraper floor by floor. By next week, some 1,100 will be in
place. Ban should be back in his 38th floor office in November.
The Security Council will return to its historic chamber in
February.

Norway, which decorated the 1952 Council chamber, is again
providing fabric and wood for the refurbishment of the horseshoe-
shaped chamber where wars have been started and averted.

The table and U.N. and national flags will go back in their same
places. "It will have new electronics, there will be video-
conferencing and other hi-tech opportunities, but basically it
will be the same room," said the architect.

Russia is renewing the Council consultations room that it paid for
in 1952 and where decades of secret talks have since been held.
China, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark and more than a dozen
other countries are decorating lounges, hallways and other rooms
in the building.

"The finished product will be quite a wonderful reflection of the
way the U.N. looked in 1952," Adlerstein said.

To bolster its green credentials, new air conditioning, water and
heating systems have been put in. Specially tinted glass will keep
the air cooler in New York's sweltering summers and warmer in the
long winters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Continues to Monitor Grace Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to monitor the bankruptcy
proceedings of W.R. Grace, where it is alleged to be responsible
for asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "Since the beginning of 2000, we have been
served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the
Cryovac transaction, we are responsible for alleged asbestos
liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also
named as co-defendants in some of these actions. Among these
lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of
personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for
personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air
Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the
asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these
cases. None of these cases has reached resolution through
judgment, settlement or otherwise. Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding has stayed all of these cases.

"While the allegations in these actions directed to us vary, these
actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the Cryovac
business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a fraudulent
transfer or gave rise to successor liability. Under a theory of
successor liability, plaintiffs with claims against Grace and its
subsidiaries may attempt to hold us liable for liabilities that
arose with respect to activities conducted prior to the Cryovac
transaction by W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. or other Grace
subsidiaries. A transfer would be a fraudulent transfer if the
transferor received less than reasonably equivalent value and the
transferor was insolvent or was rendered insolvent by the
transfer, was engaged or was about to engage in a business for
which its assets constitute unreasonably small capital, or
intended to incur or believed that it would incur debts beyond its
ability to pay as they mature. A transfer may also be fraudulent
if it was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud
creditors. If a court found any transfers in connection with the
Cryovac transaction to be fraudulent transfers, we could be
required to return the property or its value to the transferor or
could be required to fund liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries
for the benefit of their creditors, including asbestos claimants.
We have reached an agreement in principle and subsequently signed
the Settlement agreement that is expected to resolve all these
claims.

"Although we are optimistic that, if it were to become effective,
the PI Settlement Plan would implement the terms of the Settlement
agreement, we can give no assurance that this will be the case
notwithstanding the confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan by the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court. The terms of the PI
Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment. Moreover, the PI
Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of a number of
conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI Settlement
Plan and include, without limitation, the availability of exit
financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan becoming
final and no longer subject to appeal. Parties have appealed the
Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals or otherwise challenged the Amended District
Court Opinion and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order.
Matters relating to the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and
Amended District Court Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended
District Court Confirmation Orders may be subject to further
appeal, challenge, and proceedings before the District Court, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or other courts. Parties have
designated various issues to be considered in challenging the PI
Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions, or the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Confirmation Orders, including, without limitation, issues
relating to releases and injunctions contained in the PI
Settlement Plan.

"Grace has publicly indicated its decision to seek to emerge from
bankruptcy despite the ongoing appeals challenging approval of the
PI Settlement Plan. Grace has further indicated that emerging from
bankruptcy before the appeals are fully and finally resolved will
require consents or waivers from several parties, including the
Company. Grace has also indicated that, to be confident of
emerging from bankruptcy by the end of 2012, a final decision will
need to be made by early September of 2012 regarding Grace's
emergence from bankruptcy with the appeals pending. Consistent
with our Settlement agreement, we are prepared to pay the
Settlement amount directly to the asbestos trusts to be
established under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code once the
conditions of the Settlement agreement are fully satisfied. Among
those conditions is that approval of an appropriate Grace
bankruptcy plan - containing all releases, injunctions, and
protections required by the Settlement agreement - be final and
not subject to any appeal. Given the pending appeals (which
include without limitation challenges to the injunctions and
releases in the PI Settlement Plan), the condition that approval
of the PI Settlement Plan be final and not subject to any appeal
has not been satisfied at this time. The Company has not waived
this, or any other, condition of the Settlement agreement.
Furthermore, there can be no assurance that each party whose
consent or waiver is required for Grace to emerge from bankruptcy
while the appeals remain pending will provide such consent or
waiver. The Company will continue to monitor the progress of
Grace's bankruptcy proceedings, including appeals.

"While the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have confirmed
the PI Settlement Plan, we do not know whether or when the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals will affirm the Amended District Court
Confirmation Order or the Amended District Court Opinion, whether
or when the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Opinions or the
Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation Orders will
become final and no longer subject to appeal, or whether or when a
final plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or
another plan of reorganization) will become effective. Assuming
that a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement
Plan or another plan of reorganization) is confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and does become
effective, we do not know whether the final plan of reorganization
will be consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement or
if the other conditions to our obligation to pay the Settlement
agreement amount will be met. If these conditions are not
satisfied or not waived by us, we will not be obligated to pay the
amount contemplated by the Settlement agreement. However, if we do
not pay the Settlement agreement amount, we will not be released
from the various asbestos related, fraudulent transfer, successor
liability, and indemnification claims made against us and all of
these claims would remain pending and would have to be resolved
through other means, such as through agreement on alternative
settlement terms or trials. In that case, we could face
liabilities that are significantly different from our obligations
under the Settlement agreement. We cannot estimate at this time
what those differences or their magnitude may be. In the event
these liabilities are materially larger than the current existing
obligations, they could have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial condition and results of operations. We
will continue to review the Grace bankruptcy proceedings
(including appeals and other proceedings relating to the PI
Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Confirmation Orders), as well as any amendments or changes to the
PI Settlement Plan or to Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions and Confirmation Orders, to verify compliance with the
Settlement agreement.

                         Canadian Claims

"In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as
defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff
filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as
defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et
al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of
insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of
Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the
Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, we learned that six
additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various
provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the
Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada)
Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co.
and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except
with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-
Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and
expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions.

"In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian
Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In
November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has
subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be
entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on
December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. We do not
have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but
we are a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in
favor of the Grace parties (including us) will become operative
upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's
United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the PI
Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under the
Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court entered the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the
Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011 and the District Court
entered the Original District Court Confirmation Order on January
30, 2012 and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June
11, 2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011
recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's
Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in
accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI Settlement Plan has not
become effective, and we can give no assurance that the PI
Settlement Plan (or any other plan of reorganization) will become
effective. Assuming that a final plan of reorganization (whether
the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) does
become effective, if the final plan of reorganization does not
incorporate the terms of the Canadian Settlement or if the
Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization
in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in
these cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages,
which we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition
and results of operations."

More details regarding Grace's bankruptcy proceedings can be found
in Sealed Air's Form 10-Q at: http://is.gd/Oc7C6H

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection. The Company serves a
range of end markets including food and beverage processing, food
service, retail, health care and industrial, commercial and
consumer applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Had $449.8M Gross Loss Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At June 30, 2012, Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross reserves for
asbestos and environmental (A&E) losses were comprised of $146.9
million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies,
$92.8 million representing additional case reserves on assumed
reinsurance claims, $44.3 million representing case reserves on
direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and $184.8
million representing incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserves,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "With respect to asbestos only, at June 30,
2012, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $449.8 million, or
95.9%, of total A&E reserves, of which $359.2 million was for
assumed business and $90.6 million was for direct business.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival
ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 6.4 years at June 30, 2012.
These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments.

"Because the survival ratio was developed as a comparative measure
of reserve strength and does not indicate absolute reserve
adequacy, we consider, but do not rely on, the survival ratio when
evaluating our reserves.  In particular, we note that year to year
loss payment variability can be material.  This is due, in part,
to our orientation to negotiated settlements, particularly on our
Mt. McKinley exposures, which significantly reduces the
credibility and utility of this measure as an analytical tool.  In
the first half of 2012, we made asbestos net claim payments of
$2.4 million to Mt McKinley high profile claimants where the claim
was either closed or a settlement had been reached.  Such
payments, which are non-repetitive, distort downward our three
year survival ratio.  Adjusting for such settlements, recognizing
that total settlements are generally considered fully reserved to
an agreed settlement, we consider that our adjusted asbestos
survival ratio for net unsettled claims is 8.6 years, which is
better than prevailing industry norms."

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: Argo Group Had $67.8MM Gross Loss Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
At June 30, 2012, Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., had
gross and net loss reserves for asbestos and environmental of
$67.8 million and $61.5 million, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. (Argo Group) is an
international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Still Defends PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

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

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiaries provide power generation equipment and industrial
maintenance services.  Its corporate headquarters are located in
Irving, Texas, with facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Auburn,
Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; Monterrey, Mexico; Shanghai,
China; and Heerlen, The Netherlands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Continues to Defend PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and some of its subsidiaries continue to defend
asbestos personal injury claims, according to the Form
10-Q filed by Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Baltimore Gas And Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company,
and PECO Energy Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

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 June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, Generation had reserved
approximately $65 million and $49 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of June 30, 2012,
approximately $13 million of this amount related to 167 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $52 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, Generation
increased its reserve by approximately $19 million, primarily due
to increased actual and projected number and severity of claims.
BGE.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Accrued $239MM for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, as of June 30, 2012, had an
accrual of $239 million for pending and future asbestos-related
claims and related legal costs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"During the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company paid $10
million to settle outstanding claims and had 50,500 pending claims
at June 30, 2012.

"Historically (1977-2011), Crown Cork estimates that approximately
one-quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have
been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos
after 1964.

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

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

"Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of June 30, 2012.

"As of June 30, 2012, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $239 million,
including $186 million for unasserted claims. The Company's
accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the
year 2021. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for
claims beyond 2021 because the Company believes that the key
assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2011), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."

Crown Holdings, Inc., is engaged in the design, manufacture and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend 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 June 30, 2012.

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

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: TMS International Still Defends Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. continues to defend asbestos-related
claims relating to lines of business that were discontinued over
20 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2012.

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

TMS International Corp., through its subsidiaries, is the largest
provider of outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North
America with a substantial international presence. The Company
operates at 82 customer sites in 11 countries and has a raw
materials procurement network that extends to five continents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has Reserves for Asbestos Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity PLC, in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012, notes that establishing reserves for asbestos and
environmental (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) (US bankruptcy code). 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. Global Indemnity is a
property and casualty insurers in the industry, provides its
insurance products across a distribution network-binding
authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 7,973 Open Claims End June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, at June 30, 2012, had 7,973 open
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2012.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the 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.

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.

Certain of the Corporation's subsidiaries and the Corporation have
an arrangement (the "Coverage Arrangement") with insurers
responsible for historical primary and some first-layer excess
insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (the "Paying Insurers").
Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for pending and future claims for Asbestos
Liability. The claims against the Corporation's inactive
subsidiary that is in dissolution proceedings, numbering
approximately 290 as of June 30, 2012, are not included within the
Coverage Arrangement. The Corporation believes that the claims
against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution are immaterial.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products"). The
Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on
access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the
limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the
policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a
Product. In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the
Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to
the Corporation and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos
Liability alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also
other historical products of the Corporation and its subsidiaries
covered by the applicable policies.

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.

In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in
estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted
future claims for Asbestos Liability. HR&A was not requested to
estimate asbestos claims against the inactive subsidiary in
dissolution or the former division, which the Corporation believes
are immaterial. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a
reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be
asserted through 2013 as at December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis was
updated in 2008, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as at December 31, 2008 for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2018. HR&A's analysis
was most recently updated in 2010, and additional reserves were
established by the Corporation as at December 31, 2010 for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2020.

Based on analyses, 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 June 30,
2012 was $188,031,000. 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.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits alleging
personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily
to products manufactured by its former operations containing
asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us. There are 1,125 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 2,050 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,075 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued
any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of
liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, we believe that the
range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be
consistent with our historical costs (which are not material).
Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome
would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and
will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no
liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have
received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to
be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided
to insurers with which we have entered into settlements
extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek
indemnification from us."

NL Industries, Inc., is a holding company. The Company operates in
the component products industry through its majority-owned
subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in the
chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Continues to Seek Dismissal of 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 July 1, 2012.

Magnetek, Inc., is a provider of digital power control systems
that are used to control motion and power primarily in material
handling, elevator, and energy delivery applications. Its products
are sold directly or through manufacturers' representatives to
original equipment manufacturers (OEM) for incorporation into
their products, to system integrators and value-added resellers
for assembly and incorporation into end user systems, to
distributors for resale to OEMs and contractors, and to end-users
for repair and replacement purposes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Still Defends 287 PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend approximately 287
cases asserting claims alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 287
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 722 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

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

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

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

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. 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: Quigley Plans to File Petition for Certiorari
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quigley Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, was acquired by
Pfizer Inc. 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.  They recorded a charge
of $369 million pre-tax ($229 million after-tax) in the third
quarter of 2004 in connection with these matters.

The Company states: "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, which it amended in June 2012. 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. The
Second Circuit denied our petition for a rehearing, and we plan to
file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking
a reversal of the Second Circuit's decision. In July 2012, the
Second Circuit granted a stay of its decision while the U.S.
Supreme Court considers the petition for certiorari that we plan
to file.

"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.

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

Pfizer Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, manufacture, and sale of medicines for
people and animals worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Continues to Defend 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 July 1, 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 are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries.

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

Pfizer Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, manufacture, and sale of medicines for
people and animals worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products. In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific
about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products.
None of the claims seek damages from the Company alone. The
Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
is vigorously defending against them. It is not currently possible
to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with
these cases and, accordingly, no accrual or reserves have been
recorded in the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements. The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that
may provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and
is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and policies,
although there can be no assurance of the results of these
efforts. There can be no assurance that these cases, whether as a
result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense
costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

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 June 30, 2012.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company engages in manufacturing,
marketing, and selling lawn and garden care products worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Still Defends Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. continue to defend legal proceedings and
administrative actions that allege injury from alleged exposure to
a heat-resistant asbestos fiber, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended July 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, 109 of which are
pending as of July 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
July 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 cable,
connectivity, and networking products in markets, including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics.
Belden produces and sells a portfolio of cable, connectivity, and
networking products into a range of end markets, including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics.


                           *********

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  * * *