CAR_Public/091016.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 205
  
                            Headlines

ALLEN-VANGUARD: Sued for Financial Misrepresentations in Ontario
ELEKTRO: Brazilian AEI Unit Battles Privatization Class Action
GENERAL NUTRITION: Defending Suits Over Sale of Andro Products
GENERAL NUTRITION: CBPC Claims in "Ahussain" Dismissed in March
GENERAL NUTRITION: Reached Settlement of Creatine Suit in July

GENERAL NUTRITION: Defends Remaining Claims in "Jackson" Lawsuit
GENERAL NUTRITION: Defends Five Suits Over Consumer Fraud Claims
LUND UNIVERSITY: Varsity Sued Over Affirmative Action
MATTEL INC: Settles 22 Lead-Containing Toy Recall Lawsuits
MAXXAM INC: Shareholder Challenges Reverse Stock Split in Del.

MERIX CORP: Remanded Oregon Securities Fraud Suit in Discovery
MICROSOFT: Sued, with T-Mobile, for Losing Sidekick Users' Data
PACE AIRLINES: Employee Alleges Improper Termination Notice
T-MOBILE: Sued, with Microsoft, for Losing Sidekick Users' Data

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Sutts Strosberg Files Fraud Suit in Ontario
RETALIX LTD: Weiss & Lurie Files Class Action Suit in E.D. Tex.

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Biffa to Pay GBP55T Penalty for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS ALERT: Mass. Contractor Fined $16.7T for Cleanup Breach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva Reserves GBP1.019B for A&E Claims in 2008
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rushden & Higham Seeks Help on Hazard Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon Local to Pay GBP3,412 for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: A & T, Noble Gift Penalized for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beeston Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Suit v. EPA on Marco Island Issues Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to Be Removed from Tucumcari, N.M. Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Superior Abatement Penalized for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Removed From Santa Rita Elementary
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Lyons Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GlaxoSmithKline Motion Granted in Allgood Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Still Facing 135 Cases at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Lawsuits Filed in Madison During Sept. 21-25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morrison-Clark Faces Penalty for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crissy Sinopole Campaigns v. Asbestos Practices

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Burnley Hospital Worker Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Sussex Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $550T Set Aside for Courthouse Cleanup, Repairs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkhamsted Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Smith, Lowell Schools to Cost $300K

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Phoenix, Ariz., Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered at Cass Street Bridge in Fla.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Forces Closure of Fulton School in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Rock Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Walmach Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Upholds Board Ruling in White Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forse's Action v. Texaco Filed Oct. 7 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 34 of 66 Buildings in Seoul
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambridgeshire Inquest Rules on Hornsby's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Files Liability Claim v. CSR Ltd.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1st Newman Case Filed on Oct. 1 v. 31 Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Newman Action Filed in Jefferson on Oct. 7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Removed from Fort Collins Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit Filed Against Westshore Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wokingham Council Tenants "At Risk" From Hazard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Welling Worker Gets GBP110T in Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Transportation Seeks Renewal of Harron Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Schneiderhan Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allen Remand Bid Denied in Case v. Buffalo, GE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wight Remand Bid Denied in Case v. Buffalo, GE

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Perez Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. TH Agriculture Plan Resolved in 3rd-Qtr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goates Lawsuit v. Chevron Filed Oct. 7 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilcher Case v. Chevron Filed in Jefferson Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pickles, ATS to be Probed for Botched Abatement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe on Docking of U.S. Ship in Alang Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Rochester's Midtown Plaza Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Mancuso Asbestos Case to Start Oct. 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Remands Wring Action to Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Remands Diaz Case to Madison Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Remands Funk Case to Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Remands Yates Action to Madison Co.

                            *********

ALLEN-VANGUARD: Sued for Financial Misrepresentations in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Critchley at the Financial Post reports that an $80-million
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Ottawa-based Allen-
Vanguard Corp. by London-based Siskinds LLP.  The so-called
notice of action also names a number of Allen-Vanguard's current
and former officers and directors.

The class action, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
but not yet certified, seeks a "declaration that the defendants
misrepresented the true financial condition of Allen-Vanguard
Corp. in the period between Aug. 3, 2007, and Sept. 12, 2009."

The earlier data relates to the day Allen-Vanguard announced the
purchase of Med-Eng Systems Inc. for $600-million with another
$50-million set aside for the purchase of excess working capital.
"Med-Eng is clearly an exceptional strategic fit with Allen-
Vanguard and meets our other stated acquisition criteria of
scale, geographic balance, and strong growth and earnings
visibility," said David Luxton, Allen-Vanguard's chief executive
at the time of the announcement.

"We are pleased to have been able to structure the financing for
this major transaction with an ultimate combination of one half
debt and one half new equity in Allen-Vanguard," he added. About
six weeks later, Allen-Vanguard closed a $300-million equity
financing with each of the 31.58 million shares being sold for
$9.50 a share. At the time of the closing, Allen-Vanguard was a
$1-billion company.

The class period ends on Sept. 12, the same day Allen-Vanguard
announced a transaction with Versa Capital Management, a private-
equity firm. "The deal provides no consideration for the
shareholders," said Allen-Vanguard when announcing that
transaction.

Over the next few weeks a detailed statement of claim will be
filed. The suit alleges Allen-Vanguard overpaid by "at least
$250-million" to purchase Med-Eng and that "the defendants did
not conduct proper due diligence in advance of the transaction
and turned a blind eye to the grossly excessive consideration
being paid by Allen-Vanguard for Med-Eng. "

The suit further alleges that "because Allen-Vanguard has
materially overpaid for Med-Eng, it was forced to take writedowns
during the class period amounting to in excess of $516.3-
million."

Because Allen-Vanguard "failed to take the writedowns in a timely
fashion ... the shares of Allen-Vanguard were materially
overvalued throughout the class period and the plaintiff [Claude
Laneville] and the class members paid an excessive price for the
Allen-Vanguard securities that they purchased during the class
period," the lawsuit alleges.

Aside from alleging "secondary market liability," the suit also
takes aim at prospectus liability, under the Ontario Securities
Act. The suit alleges the company filed two prospectuses over the
class period -- the first on Sept. 21 2007 (for $300-million of
equity) and the second on Feb. 10, 2009 (for a $14.1-million
rights offering) -- both of which "failed, however, to make full
true and plain disclosure of all material facts related to such
shares [being offered] in that it failed to disclose the matters
complained of herein."

The suit also alleges oppressive conduct under the Business
Corporations Act.

None of the claims have been proven in court.  Mr. Critchley's
calls to Allen-Vanguard seeking comment weren't returned.


ELEKTRO: Brazilian AEI Unit Battles Privatization Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions against AEI's Brazilian subsidiary, Elektro, over
its privatization are pending.  

In July 1998, two separate class actions were filed against
Elektro and others.

Each of these actions seek the annulment of the privatization of
Elektro and allege, among other things, that the price paid for
Elektro was low and unacceptable.

Elektro has been advised by external counsel that it has solid
legal grounds on which to have each of the cases dismissed,
according to AEI's Oct. 7, 2009, Form F-1 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

AEI owns and operates essential energy infrastructure assets in
emerging markets.  It operates in 19 countries in Latin America,
Central and Eastern Europe and Asia in Power Distribution, Power
Generation, Natural Gas Transportation and Services, Natural Gas
Distribution and Retail Fuel.  It operates or has joint control
of more than 50 businesses and has investments in more than ten
others.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Defending Suits Over Sale of Andro Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., continues to defend six
purported class-action lawsuits filed in connection with Andro
Products.

Lawsuits relating to the sale by GNC of certain nutritional
products alleged to contain the ingredients commonly known as
Androstenedione, Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and
Norandrostenediol (AndroProducts) were filed against the company
in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In each of the five cases, the plaintiffs have sought, or are
seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the
class representatives and all those similarly situated who
purchased certain nutritional supplements from the company
alleged to contain one or more Andro Products.

On April 17-18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to
remove each of the Andro Actions to the respective federal
district courts in which the respective Andro Actions are
pending.  At the same time, the company filed motions seeking to
transfer each of the Andro Actions to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York based on "related to"
bankruptcy jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers supplying
them with Andro Products, and to whom they sought indemnity --
MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. -- filed for
bankruptcy.

The company was successful in removing the New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court.  These
actions were then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction.  
The California case was not removed and remains pending in state
court.

Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech Bankruptcy case, the
plaintiffs, in September 2007, filed a stipulation dismissing
all claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the
four cases currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida cases).

Additionally, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these
actions to the respective state courts where they were
originally filed, asserting that the federal court is divested
of jurisdiction because the MuscleTech bankruptcy action is no
longer pending.  The motions to remand remain pending before the
District Court.  That motion was never ruled upon and has been
rendered moot by the disposition of the case.

On June 4, 2008, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (on its own motion) set a hearing for July 14, 2008 for
the purpose of hearing argument as to why the New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Florida cases should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute in conformity to the Court's Case Management
Order.  Following the hearing, the Court advised that all four
cases would be dismissed with prejudice and issued an Order to
that effect on July 29, 2008.  On Aug. 25, 2008, plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal of the four cases to U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  Appellate briefs were submitted by all
parties in January 2009 and the Company is awaiting a decision by
the Court.

In the Guzman case in California, plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification was denied on Sept. 8, 2008.  Plaintiffs appealed
on Oct.31, 2008.  The company expects to submit an appellate
brief in October 2009.  Oral arguments have not been scheduled
are pending, according to GNC's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the plaintiffs in the five other Andro Actions
filed another suit related to the sale of Andro products in
state court in Illinois, "Stephens and Pio v. General Nutrition
Companies, Inc." (Case No. 08 CH 37097, Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division). The
allegations are substantially similar to all of the other Andro
Actions.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a   
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the   
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: CBPC Claims in "Ahussain" Dismissed in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Business & Professions Code claims in a purported
class-action suit against units of General Nutrition Centers,
Inc., were dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in March 2009.

On Nov. 7, 2006, Abdul Ahussain, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, sued GNC Franchising, LLC, and
General Nutrition Corp.

The plaintiffs, who are all current franchisees, filed a
putative class action lawsuit seeking to certify a class of
current and former California GNCF franchisees.

The suit alleges that GNC engages in unfair business practices
designed to earn a profit at its franchisees' expense.  

These alleged practices include:

       -- requiring its franchises to carry slow moving
          products, which cannot be returned to GNC after
          expiration, with the franchise bearing the loss;
      
       -- requiring franchised stores to purchase new or
          experimental products, effectively forcing the
          franchisees to provide free market research;

       -- using the Gold Card program to collect information on
          franchised store customers and then soliciting
          business from such customers;

       -- underselling its franchised stores by selling products
          through the GNC website at prices below or close to
          the wholesale price, thereby forcing franchises to
          sell the same products at a loss; and

       -- manipulating prices at which franchised stores can
          purchase products from third-party suppliers, so as to
          maintain GNC's favored position as a product
          wholesaler.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable and injunctive relief.

On March 19, 2008, the court certified a class as to only
plaintiffs' claim for violation of California Business &
Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.

The class consists of all persons or entities who are or were
GNC franchisees in the State of California from Nov. 13, 2002,
to the date of adjudication.

The plaintiffs' individual claims were settled and dismissed.

On March 18, 2009, the company's motion for summary judgment was
granted as to the CBPC class claim.

In April 2009, GNC filed a motion for court costs and attorneys'
fees and the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay approximately
$0.4 million to GNC for its fees and costs, according to GNC's
Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 2006-cv-
01090 (C.D. Calif.) (Carter, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Abel E. Aguilera, Esq.
          BOHM MATSEN KEGEL AND AGUILERA
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6500
          E-mail: eaguilera@bmkalaw.com

               - and -

          Omar Ahmed Siddiqui, Esq.
          ULWELLING SIDDIQUI
          Park Tower
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6650
          E-mail: osiddiqui@usllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Christopher C. Eck, Esq.
          GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION
          300 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-288-4600
          E-mail: chris-eck@gnc-hq.com

               - and -

          Brad A. Funari, Esq.  
          MCGUIRE WOODS
          Dominion Tower
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd-27th Floors
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-667-6000
          E-mail: bfunari@mcguirewoods.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Reached Settlement of Creatine Suit in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., and one of its wholly owned
subsidiaries, General Nutrition Corporation, reached a settlement
of the complaint filed by plaintiff S.K., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated in July 2009.

The plaintiff filed the complaint on Oct. 29, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff makes certain allegations regarding consumption of
GNC products containing creatine and GNC's alleged failure to
warn consumers of those risks.

The plaintiff asserts, among other things, claims for deceptive
sales practices, fraud, breach of implied contract, strict
liability and related tort claims.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages.

In July 2009, a settlement was reached, contemplating payment of
an immaterial amount by GNC, and the parties are preparing a
written settlement agreement at this time, according to GNC's
Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a   
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the   
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Defends Remaining Claims in "Jackson" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., is defending the remaining
claims in a consumer class and representative action filed by
Grady Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated.

On Nov. 10, 2008, Mr. Jackson filed a complaint against General
Nutrition Corporation and General Nutrition Centers, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the matter was removed to the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.

This consumer class and representative action brought under
California Unfair Competition and False Advertising Law asserts,
among other things, that the non-GNC product "Nikki Haskell's
Star Caps" contained a prescription diuretic ingredient that was
not disclosed on the label.

On March 31, 2009, GNC filed a motion to dismiss.

By order dated June 10, 2009, the court dismissed three of the
seven counts asserted by plaintiffs, according to GNC's Aug. 13,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a   
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the   
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Defends Five Suits Over Consumer Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., is defending five putative class
actions generally alleging claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability, and breach of warranty.

The suits are:

     -- Andrew Dremak, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences Group,
        Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
        California;

     -- Enjoli Pennier, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences, et al.,
        U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana;

     -- Alejandro M. Jimenez, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences,
        Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
        California;

     -- Amy Baker, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., et
        al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama;
        and

     -- Kyle Davis and Sara Carreon, et al. v. Iovate Health
        Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern
        District of Alabama.

Any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not
probable or reasonably estimable at this time, according to GNC's
Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a   
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the   
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


LUND UNIVERSITY: Varsity Sued Over Affirmative Action
---------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that a group of Swedish women filed a class-action
lawsuit against a university Wednesday because it gave under-
represented male students admissions priority, their lawyer said.

"These women wanted to study psychology, but they were not
competing on equal terms with men. . . .  The case is all about
equal treatment," lawyer Clarence Crafoord told AFP.

Mr. Crafoord represents 31 women who were refused admission in
2008 to the competitive psychology programme at Lund University,
one of Sweden's largest higher learning institutes.

That year, the university started giving priority to men applying
for the psychology programme because women applicants were over-
represented.

Women represent about 60 percent of university students in
Sweden, a pioneer in gender equality. The government has allowed
universities to practise affirmative action since 2003.

"It is almost always women who are treated unfairly when
institutions of higher education give automatic priority to
applicants of the under-represented sex," Mr. Crafoord and fellow
lawyer Gunnar Stroemmer wrote in an open letter published
Wednesday in the Dagens Nyheter newspaper.

They pointed out that three-quarters of Sweden's largest academic
institutions have affirmative action admission policies, and that
it is women who are discriminated against in 95 percent of cases.
Mr. Crafoord explained that there were no legal means to force
the university to admit the women, but that they were each suing
for 75,000 kronor (7,300 euros, 10,850 dollars) in damages.

The lawyers are also lodging a separate complaint against the
country's equality ombudsman -- a government agency which advises
on and investigates cases of discrimination -- because it refused
to hear the women's case.

"The lawyers at the equality ombudsman have said it is illegal
(for a university to apply affirmative action), and even so they
have chosen not to do anything," Mr. Crafoord said.

He added they were asking the justice ombudsman, an agency that
ensures that public authorities comply with the law, to examine
the matter.


MATTEL INC: Settles 22 Lead-Containing Toy Recall Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq., of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, announced a landmark action settlement this week
involving the largest recalls of children's toys in history.
Through the settlement, Mattel and Fisher-Price agreed to provide
refunds and other monetary relief to millions of families who
purchased children's toys made in China.  The toys were recalled
or withdrawn from the market in 2006 and 2007, after they were
found to exceed legal limits of lead in the paint or plastic of
the toy or small magnets that could become loose and harm
children if ingested. T he affected toys include popular lines
including certain Sesame Street toys, Dora the Explorer and Diego
toys made by Fisher-Price, and certain Mattel toys, such as
Batman, Polly Pocket, Barbie accessories, and Sarge cars.

The proposed consumer class action settlement will resolve
twenty-two class action lawsuits filed against Mattel and Fisher-
Price and major retailers on behalf of millions of American
children and families who purchased or received the defective
toys as gifts before they were later recalled or withdrawn from
market.  Mattel entered into the settlement on behalf of itself,
its subsidiary Fisher-Price, and the retailer defendants.

If approved by the Court, the settlement will require Mattel and
Fisher-Price to provide refunds to consumers who purchased or
acquired the toys, as well as reimburse families who incurred
costs for testing their children for lead exposure. Class members
who participated in the prior recalls of the affected toys will
automatically receive a check. Mattel will also implement a
quality assurance program, overseen by the Court, which will
ensure the safety of Mattel and Fisher-Price toys all around the
world, and it will donate $275,000 to the National Association of
Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, a not-for-profit
association of 150 children's hospitals, pediatric units of
medical centers and related health systems.

"Families deserve to trust that toys labeled as safe won't harm
their kids," said John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq., of Coughlin Stoia,
one of the Co-Lead Counsel representing consumers.  "Thanks to
this important victory for consumers as a result of this landmark
settlement involving toys made by the largest toy company in the
world, families can shop with a greater sense of security when
purchasing toys," Mr. Stoia added.

Last year, the Honorable Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California refused defendants'
attempts to dismiss the case on the basis that they had offered
consumers vouchers or replacement toys as part of a recall
program. "Defendants' argument that some Plaintiffs have not been
injured because they received replacement toys in the voluntary
recalls is unpersuasive," declared Judge Fischer in her order
rejecting the corporations' request to dismiss the case.

To receive a payment, learn more about the settlement, and get a
list of toys at issue, visit http://www.MattelSettlement.com/or  
http://www.CSGRR.com/Mattel

                       About Coughlin Stoia

Coughlin Stoia -- http://www.csgrr.com/-- is the nation's pre-
eminent class action law firm with 190-lawyers in offices in San
Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta. Coughlin Stoia is
active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many
important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers,
and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.


MAXXAM INC: Shareholder Challenges Reverse Stock Split in Del.  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Maxxam's
proposed reverse stock split would breach fiduciary duty by
suspending its financial reporting obligations and deregistering
its common stock, in Delaware Chancery Court.  Maxxam is a real
estate and golf course developer.

A copy of the Complaint in Gayner, et ux. v. Maxxam Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4971 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/13/SCAMaxxam.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: 212-682-3025

               - and -  

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-295-5310


MERIX CORP: Remanded Oregon Securities Fraud Suit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded consolidated securities fraud class-action suit,
Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al, Case No.
04-cv-00826, is in the discovery phase.

On June 17, 2004, the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in the first of
four purported class action suits alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

These four cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, have been consolidated in a single
action entitled, "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case
No. CV 04-826-MO."

The court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated
and amended class action complaint on Nov. 15, 2004.  On March
3, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and
consolidated complaint for failure to identify with sufficient
specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to have been
false and why the statements were either false when made or
material.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the case, without
prejudice, and gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  In November 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the January 2004 public offering of approximately $103.4
million of the company's common stock.

In September 2006, the court dismissed that complaint with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
Second Amended Complaint.  The company sought rehearing and a
rehearing en banc, both of which were denied.

The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth
Circuit and will file a certiorari petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court by Sept. 22, 2008.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the certiorari
petition.  The case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages.

On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all
investors who purchased in the public offering and who were
damaged thereby.  The Court has not yet ruled on that motion,
according to the company's Oct. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 29, 2009.

The suit is Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et
al., Case No. 04-cv-00826 (Ore.) (Mosman, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         Sean M. Handler, Esq.
         Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.  
         SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com
                 sberman@sbclasslaw.com
                 check@sbclasslaw.com
                 shandler@sbclasslaw.com
                 azivitz@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.  
         MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP
         1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550
         Seattle, WA 98154
         Phone: 206-839-0730
         Fax: 206-839-0728
         E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Richard L. Baum, Esq.
         PERKINS COIE, LLP
         1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
         Portland, OR 97209-4128
         Phone: 503-727-2021
         Fax: 503-727-2222
         E-mail: baumr@perkinscoie.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Bringman, Esq.
         Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq.
         Douglas W. Greene, III, Esq.
         PERKINS COIE, LLP
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800
         Seattle, WA 98101-3099
         Phone: 206-359-8501
                206-359-8477
                206-359-8613
         Fax: 206-359-9000
              206-359-9477
              206-359-9613
         E-mail: jbringman@perkinscoie.com
                 RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com
                 DGreene@perkinscoie.com


MICROSOFT: Sued, with T-Mobile, for Losing Sidekick Users' Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit places the spotlight on T-Mobile,
subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom (NYSE:DT) and Microsoft
(NASDAQ:MSFT) for losing most all the contacts, appointments,
photos and other data stored by as many as one million users of
the popular T-Mobile Sidekick line of mobile phones.

The T-Mobile Sidekick data service went down in early October and
then T-Mobile admitted that Microsoft's Danger, Inc. subsidiary,
which is responsible for the Sidekick data service, lost most all
of the personal data it was entrusted with protecting, and that
it was highly unlikely it would recover any data.

The lawsuit alleges that T-Mobile, Microsoft, and Danger actively
marketed the Sidekick mobile phones as automatically backing up
all the data that users would store, such as contacts,
appointments, photos and more, and then failed to follow through
on these promises.  According to the lawsuit, most Sidekick users
have "suffered a complete and catastrophic" loss of data.

The suit is brought by Maureen Thompson of the Atlanta area.

Ms. Thompson owns a Sidekick used primarily by her daughter,
K hryn Thompson-Gayle, an aspiring model, singer, and songwriter
who used her Sidekick to store personal and business contacts,
appointments, and even irreplaceable song lyrics not stored
anywhere else.  Ms. Thompson bought the Sidekick for her daughter
primarily because T-Mobile promised that any data would be
protected and available no matter what happened to the phone.

Upon facing a barrage of criticism for this overwhelming data
loss, T-Mobile has offered Sidekick users a free month of
Sidekick data service worth about $20 and as much as $100 in
credits to spend on T-Mobile products or services.

"T-Mobile's initial efforts to reimburse Sidekick users are a
step in the right direction, but fail to sufficiently compensate
Sidekick users for this disastrous loss of data," explained Jay
Edelson, Esq., the lead attorney for the class action.  "T-Mobile
and Microsoft promised to safeguard the most important data their
customers possess and then apparently failed to follow even the
most basic data protection principles.  What they did is
unthinkable in this day and age."

The class action seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for
failing to protect Sidekick user data, and false advertising.

Mr. Edelson's firm, KamberEdelson, LLC, is a leading class action
firm that focuses on internet, technology, and privacy issues.  
According to Edelson, "this devastating data security failure
demonstrates that companies must do more than promise security;
they must actually take whatever steps are necessary to ensure
that their customers' data are safe."

Mr. Edelson is joined on the lawsuit by Michael Aschenbrener,
Esq., of KamberEdelson.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/10-14-09_Complaint_SideKick.pdf    

Jay Edelson, Esq., testified before the U.S. in 2008 in
connection with the contaminated pet food recall, which resulted
in a settlement of over $24 million. He has a reputation for
bringing and winning high profile class action lawsuits. Just
last year, Edelson settled a nationwide case involving lead paint
contamination with Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Wooden
Railway children's toys that was valued at over $30 million.
Edelson's firm also was lead counsel in the lawsuits coming out
of the 2008 contaminated pet food recall, which resulted in a
settlement of over $24 million. Edelson testified before the U.S.
Senate in connection with that case.


PACE AIRLINES: Employee Alleges Improper Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
MyFox8.com reports that a class action lawsuit was filed Tuesday
by a former employee of Pace Airlines Inc. who alleges the
company violated its employees' rights by not giving proper
notice before they were terminated.

Participants in the lawsuit are seeking 60 days of pay and other
benefits, claiming Pace violated the WARN Act, which requires
companies to give employees at least 60 days' notice before they
are let go.

Last month the charter airline company advised the Federal
Aviation Administration it had temporarily ceased operations at
its headquarters at Smith Reynolds Airport.

Earlier, according to a memo to employees, Pace executives laid
off all nonessential personnel.  According to company executives,
the reduction affected between 75 and 100 employees. Those cuts
were in addition to earlier layoffs that affected up to 200
people.

For weeks, employees had complained of not receiving paychecks
and the company not paying their health insurance.

Also last month, investigators from the Department of Insurance
arrested Pace owner and CEO Bill Rodgers Sr. on charges he
knowingly stopped paying his employee's medical insurance
premiums without giving them proper notice.

The North Carolina Department of Labor said it has more than 430
wage complaints against Pace Airlines. The company also owes the
Forsyth Airport Commission a million dollars in rent and must
vacate its space at Smith Reynolds sometime this month.

The lawsuit was filed by Gregory J. Hensley and other former
employees by Carruthers & Roth P.A. and Outten & Golden LLP.


T-MOBILE: Sued, with Microsoft, for Losing Sidekick Users' Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit places the spotlight on T-Mobile,
subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom (NYSE:DT) and Microsoft
(NASDAQ:MSFT) for losing most all the contacts, appointments,
photos and other data stored by as many as one million users of
the popular T-Mobile Sidekick line of mobile phones.

The T-Mobile Sidekick data service went down in early October and
then T-Mobile admitted that Microsoft's Danger, Inc. subsidiary,
which is responsible for the Sidekick data service, lost most all
of the personal data it was entrusted with protecting, and that
it was highly unlikely it would recover any data.

The lawsuit alleges that T-Mobile, Microsoft, and Danger actively
marketed the Sidekick mobile phones as automatically backing up
all the data that users would store, such as contacts,
appointments, photos and more, and then failed to follow through
on these promises.  According to the lawsuit, most Sidekick users
have "suffered a complete and catastrophic" loss of data.

The suit is brought by Maureen Thompson of the Atlanta area.

Ms. Thompson owns a Sidekick used primarily by her daughter,
K hryn Thompson-Gayle, an aspiring model, singer, and songwriter
who used her Sidekick to store personal and business contacts,
appointments, and even irreplaceable song lyrics not stored
anywhere else.  Ms. Thompson bought the Sidekick for her daughter
primarily because T-Mobile promised that any data would be
protected and available no matter what happened to the phone.

Upon facing a barrage of criticism for this overwhelming data
loss, T-Mobile has offered Sidekick users a free month of
Sidekick data service worth about $20 and as much as $100 in
credits to spend on T-Mobile products or services.

"T-Mobile's initial efforts to reimburse Sidekick users are a
step in the right direction, but fail to sufficiently compensate
Sidekick users for this disastrous loss of data," explained Jay
Edelson, Esq., the lead attorney for the class action.  "T-Mobile
and Microsoft promised to safeguard the most important data their
customers possess and then apparently failed to follow even the
most basic data protection principles.  What they did is
unthinkable in this day and age."

The class action seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for
failing to protect Sidekick user data, and false advertising.

Mr. Edelson's firm, KamberEdelson, LLC, is a leading class action
firm that focuses on internet, technology, and privacy issues.  
According to Edelson, "this devastating data security failure
demonstrates that companies must do more than promise security;
they must actually take whatever steps are necessary to ensure
that their customers' data are safe."

Mr. Edelson is joined on the lawsuit by Michael Aschenbrener,
Esq., of KamberEdelson.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/10-14-09_Complaint_SideKick.pdf    

Jay Edelson, Esq., testified before the U.S. in 2008 in
connection with the contaminated pet food recall, which resulted
in a settlement of over $24 million. He has a reputation for
bringing and winning high profile class action lawsuits. Just
last year, Edelson settled a nationwide case involving lead paint
contamination with Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Wooden
Railway children's toys that was valued at over $30 million.
Edelson's firm also was lead counsel in the lawsuits coming out
of the 2008 contaminated pet food recall, which resulted in a
settlement of over $24 million. Edelson testified before the U.S.
Senate in connection with that case.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System sued
EnergySolutions, Inc., R. Steve Creamer, Philip O. Strawbridge,
Jean I. Everest, II, Mark C. McBride, Alan E. Goldberg, Jordan W.
Clements, Lance L. Hirt, Robert D. Lindsay, E. Gail De Planque,
Robert J.S. Roriston, Andrew S. Weinberg, David B. Winder, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated and ENV Holdings, LLC, Case No. 09-cv-
08633 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.), on October 9, 2009, saying that
the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection
with the 2007 IPO and a secondary stock offering.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Jay Kaufman, Esq.
          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP (LI)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Sutts Strosberg Files Fraud Suit in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class proceeding was commenced Wednesday in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all investors who acquired
shares of Novagold Resources Inc. on the Toronto Stock Exchange
during the period October 25, 2006, to January 16, 2008 (the
"Class Period").  The plaintiff alleges that NovaGold, certain of
its officers and directors and Hatch Ltd., engaged in violations
of the Ontario Securities Act and the common law.  The plaintiff,
a resident of Ontario, has retained Sutts, Strosberg LLP, with
offices in Toronto and Windsor, to prosecute the class action.

The plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, on the
strength of a feasibility study authored by Hatch Ltd., the
defendants regularly and systematically assured the investing
public that the construction of NovaGold's Galore Creek project
was on schedule and on budget. Such claims allowed NovaGold to
raise hundreds of millions of dollars in the capital markets.

On January 16, 2008, NovaGold admitted to investors that the
"Study completed by Hatch Ltd. in October 2006 should not be
relied upon." NovaGold's share price declined by more than 50%
and litigation over NovaGold's disclosures was commenced in the
United States. On June 9, 2009, an United States Federal Court
ruled that "The plaintiff has pleaded with sufficient
particularity facts supporting an inference that NovaGold knew
that the Hatch Study and its cost estimate of USD $1.8 billion
were unreliable and misleading shortly after release, if not at
release, or that NovaGold was at least reckless in its public
statements of reliance on the estimate... Despite such knowledge,
NovaGold continued to tout the Hatch Study's figures throughout
that year." Importantly, the United States federal court excluded
from the U.S. litigation all purchasers who acquired NovaGold
shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP pioneered securities class actions in
Ontario and has recovered more than $100 million for its clients
in securities class actions as a result of its involvement on the
leadership team of many successful proceedings such as Bre-X, YBM
Magnex, Southwestern Resources, Atlas Cold Storage and CV
Technologies.  Visit the Sutts, Strosberg LLP Web site at
http://www.strosbergco.com/and  
http://www.novagoldclassaction.com/for more information about  
the firm and the NovaGold class action.

          CONTACT:  Jay Strosberg, Esq.
                    Sutts, Strosberg LLP
                    Telephone: (519) 561-6285
                    E-mail: jay@strosbergco.com


RETALIX LTD: Weiss & Lurie Files Class Action Suit in E.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
on behalf of the public owners of the stock of Retalix, Ltd.,
(NASDAQ:RTLX), against certain officers and/or directors of
Retalix, and other persons and entities who are parties to a
proposed transaction through which the Company will enter into a
Share Purchase Agreement with a group of Investors seeking to
gain control of the Company.

The complaint asserts claims against defendants Retalix, Retalix
USA Inc., Gillon Beck, Brian Cooper, Ishay Davidi, Neomi Enoch,
Zvi Lieber, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Ian O`Reilly, Barry Shaked, Gur
Shomron, and Itschak Shrem for violations of their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, good faith, due care, and full and fair
disclosure.

The complaint concerns the defendants' agreement to a Private
Placement of Retalix stock with a group of Investors (the
"Investors") at $9.10 per share; authorizing the Investors to
launch a Tender Offer to gain a controlling interest in the
Company at $9.10 a share; and giving the Investors millions of
dollars worth of warrants.  The consideration to be paid by the
Investors is grossly inadequate and does not fairly value Retalix
stock. Indeed, defendants Shaked and Cooper have agreed to sell
all of their Retalix shares to the Investors at $12.00 per share,
$2.90 per share more than the Investors will pay Retalix in the
Private Placement or Retalix shareholders in the Tender Offer.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Weiss & Lurie which
possesses significant experience and expertise in prosecuting
class actions on behalf of shareholders in federal and state
courts throughout the United States.  Weiss & Lurie has been
collectively responsible for recovering more than a billion
dollars on behalf of class members.

If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this
matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us,
please contact:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.      
          David C. Katz, Esq.
          Michael Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Biffa to Pay GBP55T Penalty for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biffa Waste Services Limited, a waste management business, on
Oct. 14, 2009, was handed down over GBP55,000 in fines and costs
for the poor handling of asbestos, according to an Environment
Agency press release dated Oct. 14, 2009.

Derby Magistrates' Court heard that by not managing asbestos in
the correct manner, Biffa exposed its staff and the environment
to risk of harm.

Biffa, which operates a landfill at Elvaston Quarry, Bellington
Hill, near Shardlow, Derbyshire, England, was sentenced in
relation to two charges of breaching its waste management
license, specifically involved with the handling of asbestos.

The Company was fined GBP40,000 and ordered to pay GBP15,400 in
costs, along with a GBP15 victim surcharge. The charges were
brought by the Environment Agency under Section 33 (6) of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990.

For the Environment Agency, Counsel Barry Berlin told the court
that Biffa holds a Waste Management Licence for the Elvaston
Quarry site. As the site operator, Biffa was responsible for
controlling the deposit and safe handling of the waste it
received.

Around May 2007, Biffa was accepting brown and white asbestos and
had to therefore adhere to its operational working plan and its
Waste Management Licence.

The Waste Management Licence required that asbestos be carefully
deposited in pre-constructed lanes to contain it and make it
easier to cover up and then contain it immediately to minimize
the risk of any potentially harmful asbestos fibres escaping in
to the air.

On May 17, 2007, Environment Officers visited Elvaston Quarry and
saw both bagged and sheet asbestos left exposed on site.  The
asbestos had not been tipped in pre-constructed lanes, it had not
been covered up and no Biffa employees were in the tipping area
to undertake or oversee activities.

A Notice was served on Biffa requiring it to immediately comply
with its Waste Management Licence and cover up any asbestos,
which could potentially cause harm and ensure waste asbestos was
correctly handled in future.

Environment Officers returned to the site on May 21, 2007 and
found asbestos was still not being handled or covered correctly.
Biffa staff was still apparently unsure of the correct procedures
to follow.

Speaking after the case Mark Cunningham, an Environment Agency
Team Leader involved in the investigation, said, "This persistent
mishandling of asbestos plainly created a serious risk of
asbestos fibres escaping and seems to have arisen from a
combination of poorly trained staff and inadequate management on
the part of Biffa.

"I hope today's result sends a clear message that we won't
hesitate to take strong action against anyone who shows disregard
for public health or the environment. I would, however, like to
reassure local residents and the public in general that we found
no evidence that asbestos escaped from site."

In mitigation, solicitor Stephen Toghill said the Company
bitterly regretted the incident, staff had been retrained and
there were no further incidents before the site was closed in
October 2007.

In sentencing, the District Judge stated that this was a case of
persistent mishandling of asbestos. She also said these were
serious breaches of the Act by a company without an unblemished
record.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Mass. Contractor Fined $16.7T for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) levied a US$16,700 penalty against Environmental
Restoration Services Corporation of Lawrence, Mass., for
violating state asbestos regulations during a job in Westfield,
according to a MassDEP press release dated Oct. 13, 2009.

MassDEP's action followed receipt of a complaint regarding the
improper removal of asbestos-containing thermal insulation at a
former manufacturing facility, Columbian Mill at 1 Cycle Street,
Westfield.

During an inspection of the facility conducted on July 18, 2008,
MassDEP found that Environmental Restoration Services had failed
to employ asbestos removal, handling and disposal procedures
designed to prevent the release of asbestos fibers.

MassDEP ordered Environmental Restoration Services to develop and
implement a Standard Operating Procedure for its asbestos
abatement operations to ensure future compliance with the
asbestos regulations.

The Company will pay US$3,000 of the US$16,700 penalty. The
remaining US$13,700 has been suspended by MassDEP during a two-
year probationary period.

Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, said, "Asbestos abatement contractors must be held
accountable for the protection of the public health and welfare
of their clients, their employees and the general public.

"Mishandling asbestos-containing materials poses a serious health
risk to those exposed and MassDEP will take firm enforcement
action against chronic violators."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva Reserves GBP1.019B for A&E Claims in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aviva plc's net initial asbestos- and environmental-related
reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were
GBP1.019 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with GBP323
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross initial A&E reserves for unpaid losses and
LAE were GBP1.994 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
GBP1.284 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has exposure to liabilities for A&E claims arising
from the sale of commercial liability and multi-peril policies
prior to 1987. After 1987, policy terms and conditions in many
cases excluded these types of claims, thereby considerably
reducing the Company's potential for loss.

The Company's estimation of latent claims reserves was revised in
2008 to reflect increasing market trends observed in mesothelioma
claims. Most of the Company's latent claims reserves relate to
mesothelioma-based risks in the U.K.

The Institute of Actuaries' Asbestos Working Party report in 2008
contributed to the Company's view that experience variances,
which the Company had previously perceived as normal short-term
volatility, reflected a real worsening of expected ultimate
claims experience.

The market trend in mesothelioma claims has been fully reflected
as a significant one-off strengthening of gross latent claims
reserves in 2008 of GBP356 million, with a corresponding increase
of GBP52 million in reinsurance recoverable. The net increase of
GBP304 million in claims reserves comprises GBP668 million on an
undiscounted basis and discounting of GBP364 million.

While this is a significant change, it should be noted that this
reflects the long-term impact of the settlement of latent claims
currently running at GBP30 million per annum, of which GBP25
million relates to mesothelioma.

The number of claims is currently predicted to rise slightly in
the period to 2015 and then diminish slowly over the next 30
years to 2045.

London-based Aviva plc provides life and pension products in the
United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, France,
Italy, and Romania. The Company seeks to grow its long-term and
savings businesses in Asian markets and the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rushden & Higham Seeks Help on Hazard Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rushden & Higham United F.C., a football club based in Rushden,
Northamptonshire, England, is calling for help on the removal of
asbestos from the roof of one of its stands, the Evening
Telegraph reports.

The club seeks quotes to have the asbestos removed and has
approached councils and other organizations for funding.

The club has more than 200 members, ranging from children as
young as eight to adults, and it cannot extend at the ground.

The club has approached Rushden Town Council to ask for more
sporting facilities to be created for footballers in the town
either at the proposed Manor Park leisure centre complex or
elsewhere.

The club has sent the town council a letter, which will be shown
to councilors at a future meeting.

Club secretary Chris Ruff said, "We're still playing there but
we've been told we won't be re-insured in the future. The stand
includes our main changing rooms so if we cannot use that we
wouldn't be able to play there.

"We have been in the town as Rushden Rangers for almost 30 years
and merged with Higham Town which has a history dating back more
than 100 years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon Local to Pay GBP3,412 for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Stanbury, of Devon, England, was ordered to pay GBP3,412 in
fines and costs for tipping waste including asbestos on land at
Holsworthy, Devon, according to an Environment Agency press
release dated Sept. 28, 2009.

On Aug. 7, 2008, Environment Agency officers visited a site near
Rydon Lane, Holsworthy, Devon, to investigate a report of illegal
waste dumping. On arrival they saw piles of building waste
including rubble, wood, plastic and metals.

Evidence of waste burning was found nearby. A large lorry had
become stuck in mud while attempting to deposit soil at the site.
There were mounds of soil from previous lorry deliveries.

Mr. Stanbury, the owner, said he was tipping waste to increase
the land level. The material had come from the "viaduct site" at
Holsworthy. Agency officers explained he could not tip any more
material at the site until he obtained the necessary permits and
authorisations including planning permission. He was also told to
stop burning waste.

Despite receiving this advice, Mr. Stanbury continued to bring
building waste to the site. On Oct. 30, 2008, Agency officers
returned with a planning officer from Devon County Council who
said Mr. Stanbury would not be given planning permission for the
activities he was carrying out. He was told, by the Agency, to
clear the site and ensure any waste was properly disposed of.

On Jan. 29, 2009, officers returned and found that while some
materials had been removed, the site still contained waste
including asbestos sheets that had been newly dumped at the site.

Robin Duffy for the Environment Agency said, "It is illegal for
landowners to keep controlled waste on their land without an
exemption or permit. This defendant continued to import waste
including potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos
despite being told to stop by the Agency."

Mr. Stanbury, of The Holly, Rydon Lane, Holsworthy was fined
GBP2,000 and ordered to pay GBP1,412 costs by Barnstaple
magistrates after pleading guilty to two offences under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 including keeping controlled
waste on land adjacent to Rydon Lane and keeping asbestos at the
same site without an Environmental Permit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: A & T, Noble Gift Penalized for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two companies, A & T Roofing Ltd and Noble Gift Packaging Ltd,
were prosecuted after workers and members of the public were
exposed to unacceptable levels of asbestos during a removal
project, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release
dated Oct. 7, 2009.

The HSE took the companies to court on Oct. 6, 2009 after an
unlicensed contractor carried out the specialist work at a
warehouse in Brimsdown, Enfield, England.

On Nov. 29, 2005, Noble Gift contracted A & T Roofing to remove
the roof from a building on Lockfield Avenue. The roof was lined
with 3,000 square meters of asbestos insulating board that
contained Amosite (brown asbestos fibers), which requires removal
in highly controlled conditions by licensed asbestos contractors.

A & T Roofing, of 191 Bowes Road, Enfield, on Sept. 1, 2009,
pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to Regulation 3(1) of the
Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983, and Sections 2(1) and 3(1)
Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They Company was fined
GBP25,000 and was ordered to pay costs of GBP33,844.30.

Noble Gift, of 73 Lockfield Avenue, Enfield, on Oct. 28, 2008,
pleaded guilty at the City of London Magistrates' Court to
Section 3(1) Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Company
was fined GBP40,000 and was ordered to pay costs of GBP19,223.65.

A & T Roofing employees spent 12 weeks removing and smashing the
boards before sweeping the dust and debris into bags. The workers
were not provided with effective protection, even after the
company found out that the material being cleared contained
Amosite.

Managers allowed work to continue after employees complained and
a tested sample showed the presence of asbestos. Workers at the
site were exposed to potentially deadly fibres. These were
carried on their clothes and into their homes, vehicles, onto
public transport, and may have contaminated the general public
and their own families.

HSE Inspector Sarah Snelling said, "A & T Roofing Ltd's cavalier
attitude towards the removal of the asbestos has put the future
health of their employees, their employees' families and members
of the public in general at serious risk. The exposure suffered
by the men working on this project is the worst our specialist
inspector has seen in over 15 years of dealing with asbestos
cases.

"Not everyone exposed to asbestos goes on to develop life-
threatening or terminal asbestos-related conditions such as lung
cancer, asbestosis or mesothelioma. However, when people do
develop such conditions, it is often many years after they were
exposed. All the men exposed, and their families, will have this
hanging over them for the rest of their lives."

Ms. Snelling added, "The actions of A & T Roofing Ltd in this
matter were unpardonable; they were told two weeks into the
project that they were working with brown asbestos but carried on
for another 10 weeks.

"Noble Gift Packaging Ltd, as client for the work, should have
taken the basic step of having a full asbestos survey done after
they were informed in a valuation survey that the roof contained
asbestos. This could have prevented this whole tragic case."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beeston Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Nottingham, England, heard that the death of 73-
year-old electrician, Neil Copley, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

Mr. Copley, of Beeston, Nottinghamshire, England, was found dead
at home on Sept. 25, 2009. A post-mortem examination showed he
died from broncho-pneumonia arising from pulmonary fibrosis.

A verdict of death by industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Suit v. EPA on Marco Island Issues Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Sanchez, a Marco Island, Fla., Resident and a Miami-Dade
College professor, sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
alleging the EPA did not release information about asbestos found
in 2005 on city property as required by the Freedom of
Information Act, the Marco Eagle reports.

Marco Public Information Coordinator Lisa Douglass confirmed
asbestos fragments existed on a construction staging site, which
is now Veterans' Community Park.

Ms. Douglass, who, before being hired as the City spokeswoman,
was the ombudsman for the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and was addressing Marco residents' environmental
complaints sent to DEP.

In addition to asbestos fragments, Mr. Sanchez alleges that other
toxic materials were handled improperly between January 2005 and
December 2007. The lawsuit alleges that the city pumped untreated
hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid and sediment into waterways.

On Sept. 18, 2009, Mr. Sanchez filed his lawsuit without an
attorney in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, Fla. In his
Freedom of Information Act request, Mr. Sanchez sought all EPA
documents involving Marco Island between January 2005 and July
31, 2008.

Mr. Sanchez's lawsuit says the EPA informed him that his public
information request was denied because people investigated by the
EPA "may be embarrassed" by the release of such information.

EPA spokeswoman Deb Berlin said, "We take FOIA responsibilities
very seriously. Once the complaint is received, we will look into
the allegations and respond as is consistent with the law."

Although it is the EPA' policy not to comment on pending
litigation, Ms. Berlin said EPA officials and attorneys are
putting a lot of energy into investigating Sanchez's allegations
of FOIA violations.

The issue began in October 2005, when crushed asbestos pipe was
discovered on the park property, prompting allegations against
the city and Quality Enterprises, a contractor the city hired to
complete the Collier Boulevard Reconstruction Project.

City officials disputed the contentions, accusing residents of
planting the asbestos to derail the ongoing construction on
Marco. Police Chief Thom Carr said detectives closed their
investigation into the planted asbestos theory after determining
the allegations were unfounded.

In March 2006, Citizens Advocating Responsible Environmental
Solutions (CARES), a former political action committee, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court over the asbestos allegations.

That lawsuit, which accused the city of violating the federal
Clean Air Act, ended in a settlement agreement in October 2006
that required Quality Enterprises to pay for the proper removal
and disposal of the asbestos.

When the allegations surfaced, former Marco Island resident Ed
Foster, Godfrey Davies, Mr. Sanchez and other residents collected
and reported evidence to support their contentions that Marco's
underground water, which contains hydrogen sulfide, was pumped
into canals to make way for the construction of the island's
Septic Tank Replacement Program. At the time, many residents
reported allergic reactions to a rotten egg smell that is
associated with hydrogen sulfide.

The Collier County Department of Health checked the health
concerns residents raised over the construction on Collier
Boulevard as well as the Septic Tank Replacement Program, which
began in 2005. The process has since changed, according to Ms.
Douglass, who said underground water related to the ongoing sewer
project is now sent to the treatment plant.

In 2007, DEP and the South Florida Water Management District
ordered Marco Island to stop discharging waste into state waters.
However, the order did not result in fines.

Mr. Sanchez contends that waiting for the information is like
waiting for those who perpetrated the environmental crimes to
serve prison time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to Be Removed from Tucumcari, N.M. Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
City Commissioners in Tucumcari, N.M., have tasked City Manager
Bobbey Rose to deal with asbestos and other contaminants at the
Sands Dorsey Building, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Sands Dorsey is a historic building that was damaged over two
years ago in a fire. Commissioner Jim Lafferty said, "We are no
closer to a solution then when we began these discussions two
years ago."

The cost of demolition, abatement, and disposal is prohibitive,
and a major source of contention for city officials. Lead,
mercury and asbestos were found in the materials at the site.

Doug Powers, Tucumcari's Community Development director said,
"Because of levels of containments, demolition and transportation
of the waste changes drastically. We can not just tear it down
and throw it in our landfill. One possible solution is seeking
Brownfield Funds."

Mr. Rose is demanding that action be taken swiftly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Superior Abatement Penalized for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Department of Labor cited Superior Abatement
Inc., a West Caldwell, N.J.-based contractor, with five asbestos-
related safety violations during cleanup at the Roosevelt High
School in Roosevelt, Long Island, N.Y., Newsday reports.

The state inspection report was obtained by Newsday on Oct. 6,
2009.

The state Department of Labor has cited Superior Abatement with
five safety violations in the asbestos removal, part of a
renovation project that has both teachers and students
complaining of a rain of noxious dust, which the district said
was Styrofoam being removed.

Citations were issued after the inspector on Sept. 4, 2009,
before the school year began, observed a "plume of white dust"
rising along a wall atop the 54-year-old high school. The
citations, issued after the Sept. 4, 2009 inspection, observed
three workers not wearing required respirators as the dust rose
during the asbestos removal work.

On Oct. 6, 2009, department spokeswoman Karen Williamson said
that an inspector returned to the school on Oct. 2, 2009 in
response to further complaints about roofing work. A second
investigation is under way.

However, an assistant Roosevelt schools superintendent, David
Weiser, said on Oct. 6, 2009 in a phone interview that material
spotted falling from the roof by teachers during the school year
was Styrofoam insulation removed by another contractor, not the
potentially hazardous asbestos described in the inspector's
report.

Mr. Weiser added that the district ordered a cleanup in response
to complaints. On Oct. 2, 2009, the district also issued a letter
to parents saying that preliminary results of air testing showed
the high school's interior to be free of asbestos contamination.

Superior Abatement's asbestos removal began Sept. 3, 2009 and was
completed on Sept. 23, 2009, according to the company, which is
licensed for such work.

The firm's owner, Nick Petrovski, told Newsday that he fired the
work crew and its supervisor as soon as the Labor Department
notified him of the violations, and that he brought in new
workers on Sept. 8, 2009. That was the same day classes resumed
in the school. However, Mr. Petrovski and the district said all
asbestos removal was done after classes ended each day.

Roosevelt is the only state-run district in New York, and is
nearing completion of a US$100-million reconstruction of all its
schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Removed From Santa Rita Elementary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos will be removed from the Santa Rita Elementary School
and 10 other area schools in San Angelo, Tex., Mesothelioma.com
reports.

The school will benefit from the San Angelo school district's
US$117 million bond project, passed in November 2008.

Over a 10-month period, renovation and remodeling were done for
the entry, administration offices and student restrooms of the
Santa Rita School.

The Santa Rita Elementary School dates back to the 1920s. Money
from the bond will be used at area schools through 2012.

According to Steve Van Hoozer, the district's director of bond
planning and construction, the district is forced to juggle
multiple projects at the same time. He said, "We are 95 percent
through with Phase 1 of a five phase project at Santa Rita."

Phase 2 has begun, and involved the north wing of the building.
This phase will wrap up by Thanksgiving. Phase 3 consists of work
on the south wing, and will require asbestos abatement.

Projects at Crockett Elementary, Glenmore Elementary, Bradford
Elementary and Reagan Elementary will also begin as soon as
possible. The projects have been pushed back due to foul weather
and changes to the plans for the finished look for each school.

Mr. Van Hoozer added, "Everything has been pushed back, from
weeks to months, because of changes in planning. For instance,
Goliad [School] uses smart boards in every classroom and changes
had to be made to make that work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Lyons Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the
Workers' Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals, which ruled
that the Honorable Marcel Smith, an administrative law judge,
erred in dismissing Thomas B. Lyons' compensation claim.

The case is styled Radco Asbestos Specialists, Inc., Appellant v.
Thomas B. Lyons; Honorable Marcel Smith, Administrative Law
Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees.

The Court entered judgment in Case No. 2008-SC-000777-WC on Aug.
27, 2009.

Mr. Lyons sustained a work-related back injury on June 11, 1990,
and was awarded a 30 percent occupational disability, which
provided income benefits for 425 weeks beginning on June 26,
1991, and medical benefits "during disability."

Mr. Lyons filed the first of two motions to reopen in May 2000,
which was after the 425-week period of his income benefits
expired but within four years after Dec. 12, 1996. He alleged
that his physicians had taken him off work since Jan. 13, 2000,
and that he was totally disabled, either temporarily or
permanently.

An ALJ awarded TTD from Jan. 13, 2000, for so long as Mr. Lyons
remained totally disabled and ordered the employer, Radco
Asbestos Specialists, Inc. to pay for a lumbar discogram. A
subsequent order terminated TTD benefits as of July 10, 2003, and
an order entered on Sept. 12, 2003, denied Mr. Lyons' request for
permanent total disability benefits.

Mr. Lyons filed the motion to reopen that is the subject of this
appeal on Jan. 26, 2004. He alleged increased disability and
requested both additional TTD benefits and approval for a
proposed surgery. He underwent an independent medical examination
by Dr. Kriss by agreement of the parties, after which Radco
Asbestos approved the surgery. Dr. Holt performed the procedure
in March 2007.

Radco Asbestos asserted that the phrase "during the period of an
award" referred to the period of an award of income benefits and,
thus, that KRS 342.125(3) prohibited reopening because Mr. Lyons'
award of income benefits expired before January 2004.

Judge Smith agreed and dismissed the claim. Like the Board and
the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court disagreed and concluded
that this matter must be remanded for additional consideration.

The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

James Gordon Fogle, Esq., Denis S. Kline, Esq., of Ferreri &
Fogle in Louisville, Ky., represented Radco Asbestos Specialists,
Inc.

Wayne C. Daub, Esq., in Louisville, Ky., represented Thomas B.
Lyons.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GlaxoSmithKline Motion Granted in Allgood Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, granted
GlaxoSmithKline plc's motion for reconsideration as to the
assessment of court costs filed by Sheila Allgood, Francis P.
Powell and Robin P. May, in a case involving asbestos filed on
behalf of Jake Palermo.

The case is styled Sheila Allgood, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline plc.

District Judge Eldon E. Fallon entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 06-3506 on Aug. 25, 2009.

Ms. Allgood, Mr. Powell and Ms. May, are the sole heirs of Mr.
Palermo, who suffered from cancer and depression. He was
prescribed the drug Paxil for his depression in April 2003.

Paxil is manufactured and marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. The
Plaintiffs alleged that the drug caused suicidal tendencies,
which ultimately resulted in Mr. Palermo fatally shooting himself
on April 14, 2003 at the age of 76.

The Plaintiffs filed this survival/wrongful death action in state
court under theories of products liability and negligence,
relying on Louisiana's Products Liability Act. GlaxoSmithKline
removed the case on July 5, 2006.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment to
GlaxoSmithKline on two independent grounds:

-- First, that under the learned intermediary doctrine,
   GlaxoSmithKline had discharged its duty as to the Plaintiffs
   by adequately warning the prescribing physician of any
   dangers of harm from the drug; and

-- Second, that under the doctrine of judicial estoppels, the
   Plaintiffs were precluded from arguing that Paxil was a
   proximate cause of their father's suicide because, in a
   separate case in state court, they had previously argued that
   his exposure to asbestos was the sole cause.

The Court awarded GlaxoSmithKline costs and referred the
calculation of costs to the Clerk of Court. On March 25, 2008,
the Clerk of Court awarded GlaxoSmithKline US$15,075.43.

On May 5, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
GlaxoSmithKline asserted that Plaintiffs are prevented from
filing a Motion for Reconsideration because that motion should be
filed as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment within 10 days
of the judgment.

Therefore, GlaxoSmithKline asserted that the only issue before
the Court was the amount of costs to be taxed against Plaintiffs.
GlaxoSmithKline asserted that all costs were reasonable and
should remain at the amount of US$15,075.43.

The Court ordered that GlaxoSmithKline's Motion for
Reconsideration be granted. Plaintiffs were taxed costs of
US$7,537.72.

David L. Colvin, Esq., Travis Jasper Causey, Jr., Esq., of Colvin
Law Firm in Gretna, La., Arnold Anderson Vickery, Esq., of
Vickery, Waldner & Mallia, LLP in Houston, Lewis Scott Joanen,
Esq., of Bruno & Bruno in New Orleans, represented Sheila
Allgood, Francis P. Powell, and Robin P. May.

Heather M. Howard, Esq., of King & Spalding, LLP in Atlanta,
represented GlaxoSmithKline plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Still Facing 135 Cases at Aug. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc., as of Aug. 31, 2009, faced 135 pending asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 8, 2009.

The Company faced 135 pending asbestos cases as of May 31, 2009,
compared with 157 cases pending as of Nov. 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, 10 July 2009)

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County,
Ill., San Francisco.

During the nine months ended Aug. 31, 2009, the Company noted 24
claims filed, 22 claims consolidated, 22 claims dismissed, and
two claims settled. The aggregate settlement costs were US$35,000
and the average settlement costs were US$49,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2008, the Company noted 33 claims
filed, 31 claims dismissed, and five claims settled. The
aggregate settlement costs were US$246,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$49,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the
first nine months of fiscal 2009 were US$300,000. Legal and
administrative fees for the asbestos cases were US$500,000 for
fiscal year 2008 and US$900,000 for fiscal year 2007.

Rancho Cordova, Calif.-based GenCorp Inc. manufactures aerospace
and defense products and systems. The Company has a real estate
segment that includes activities related to the re-zoning,
entitlement, sale, and leasing of the Company's excess real
estate assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Lawsuits Filed in Madison During Sept. 21-25
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Sept. 21, 2009 through Sept. 25, 2009, a total
of 16 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-1003) Mary Bertrand of Ontario, Canada,
   alleges the deceased Robert Bertrand developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a laborer and insulator. Richard L. Saville
   Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and David J. Page, Esq., of
   Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Ms.
   Bertrand.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1004) Robert and Isabelle Bullock of Ohio
   claim Mr. Bullock developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   teacher, minister, bus driver, toll booth operator and self-
   employed operator of various camps and resorts. Timothy F.
   Thompson Jr., Esq., and Ryan J. Kiwala, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent the Bullocks.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1017) Walter Cain, a member of the U.S. Navy
   and a worker at various other jobs, claims mesothelioma.
   Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
   Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Cain.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1011) Bruce Klabunde of North Dakota claims
   his deceased mother, Elizabeth Klabunde, developed
   mesothelioma after her work as a receptionist and home
   remodeler. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and
   Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Klabunde.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1018) Gerald and Kathleen LaBathe of Texas
   claim Mr. LaBathe developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   member of the U.S. Army and in the National Guard. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
   LaBathes.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1025) Dolores Molloy of Illinois claims her
   deceased husband, Joseph Molloy, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as an electrician and mechanic. Nate Mudd, Esq., of
   French and Mudd in St. Louis, will represent Mrs. Molloy.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1010) Fabian Moyano claims his deceased
   father, Guillermo Moyano, developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a superintendent. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Moyano.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1012) Dexter Napier of Georgia, a laborer,
   claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Napier.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1026) Donald Pattison claims the deceased
   Arthella Pattison developed mesothelioma after her work at
   St. Johns and Orvid-Elsie schools. Richard L. Saville Jr.,
   Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Andrew J. Balcer, Esq., of
   Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Pattison.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1002) Adriana M. Perez of Florida, a laborer
   at ABC Print Shop in Miami, a laborer at Haiti, an office
   worker at Nikki Lu and a secretary at a doctor's office,
   claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill.,
   will represent Mrs. Perez.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1005) Richard W. and Geraldine F. Reeves of
   Indiana claim Mr. Reeves developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a seaman in the U.S. Navy, as a bill collector for
   various credit and accounting firms and as a boilermaker for
   various employees through the international Boilermaker
   Union. Randy L. Gori of Gori, Esq., of Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Reeves couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1006) Ella D. Ridout of Texas claims her
   deceased husband, Thomas G. Ridout, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a member of the U.S. Air Force, as an iron
   worker, welder and crane operator, as a general foreman for
   Martin K. Eby, as a general foreman for H.B. Zachry, as a
   superintendent for Wanzek Construction and as a general
   foreman and general superintendent for Fluor. Elizabeth V.
   Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Ridout.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1014) Anne M. Schmuhl of Ohio claims her
   deceased father, Julius M. Storti, developed mesothelioma
   after his work with Transformer Engineering Corp. Elizabeth
   V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Schmuhl.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1013) Danielle Taurmina of New York claims her
   deceased stepfather, Mario Bosio, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a civil engineer and a home remodeler.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind
   M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Taurmina.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1009) Maurice Wintermann of Illinois, a
   boilermaker, janitor and laborer, claims mesothelioma. Andrew
   O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
   Neilson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J.
   FitzGerald, Esq., of the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis will
   represent Mr. Wintermann.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1015) John J. Worthen of Illinois, a
   bricklayer for Worthen Brick Construction Company, a
   bricklayer for Coppers, a bricklayer for Ser-Steel and a
   bricklayer for National Steel and US Steel, claims lung
   cancer. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq.,
   of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mr. Worthen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morrison-Clark Faces Penalty for CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morrison-Clair, Inc., a South Barre, Vt.-based flooring
contractor, faces a penalty for alleged violations of the Clean
Air Act and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Asbestos, commonly known as the "Asbestos NESHAP"
regulations, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
press release dated Oct. 9, 2009.

According to EPA, Morrison-Clark violated certain requirements of
the Asbestos NESHAP when they performed a flooring removal and
replacement job, in July 2008, at the Main Street Middle School
in Montpelier. The flooring consisted of vinyl asbestos tile.

Specifically, Morrison-Clark failed to provide written notice to
EPA before starting the work, to wet the asbestos while stripping
it and keep it wet until collected and contained for disposal
and, also, failed to properly handle and dispose of asbestos-
containing waste that was generated.

The Company faces a penalty of up to US$32,500 per day for the
alleged violations of the "Asbestos NESHAP" regulations.

The federal Clean Air Act and the Asbestos NESHAP requirements,
promulgated under the Act, require owners and operators of
renovation operations to follow certain inspection requirements
prior to beginning work and, for jobs involving regulated
asbestos-containing materials, to abide by specific notification,
work practice, and waste disposal requirements.

Violations of Asbestos NESHAP requirements can pose significant
health risks to the surrounding community, as well as to workers
conducting demolition or renovation operations. In this case,
though, EPA is not aware of any specific harm or exposure to
airborne asbestos caused by the renovation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crissy Sinopole Campaigns v. Asbestos Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crissy Sinopole, the Sarnia-Lambton New Democratic Party
Candidate, launched a campaign to urge the Canadian federal
government to stop its controversial asbestos practices, The
Observer reports.

The federal government has been criticized for its failure to ban
the mining and sale of asbestos, while it continues to be
exported to third world countries.

More than CAD100 million worth of asbestos was exported in 2008,
much of it to India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Brazil. It is
estimated that at least 90,000 people die from asbestos-related
lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis, each year.

The issue, Ms. Sinopole noted, hits home to many people in this
community - an area with one of the highest rates of asbestos-
related disease in Canada. She said, "This is for the victims
that have been left behind. For the grandchildren who have been
denied the opportunity to know their grandfathers."

Ms. Sinopole added, "What infuriates me is that this is 100
percent preventable. And shame on us for making it always about a
dollar."

Ms. Sinopole's petition has gone out to a number of companies,
before being tabled in the House of Commons later in October
2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Burnley Hospital Worker Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Burnley Coroner's Court heard that the death of
John Swales, a hospital worker from Burnley, England, was linked
to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Burnley Citizen reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Swales, a maintenance expert
responsible for the upkeep of several East Lancashire hospitals,
was slowly poisoned by asbestos as he repaired wards and
theatres. He split his time between Burnley General, nearby
Victoria Hospital and infirmaries in Nelson and Colne.

East Lancashire coroner Richard Taylor, reading from a statement
by Mr. Swales' widow, Audrey Swales, recalled one incident where
Mr. Swales was forced to carry out emergency repairs to the
recovery room at Burnley General. Mrs. Swales said, "He came
absolutely covered in dust and said that the recovery room
ceiling had collapsed and he was holding it up with poles while
they got the patients out."

The inquest heard that the 79-year-old Mr. Swales, who latterly
lived at the Taylor Street nursing home in Burnley, was first
employed by the hospitals in 1965.

Mr. Swales underwent tests for possible asbestos infection
several years ago but it was only when a post-mortem examination
was carried out, after his death on April 8, 2009, that the
extent of his problem emerged.

Consultant pathologist Dr. Zuhir Twage said internal examinations
showed that Mr. Swales had around eight million particles of
asbestos fibres in his lungs at the time of his death.

Normally people would carry around one million with them through
day-to-day living so eight million was considered a high amount,
added Dr. Twage.

Recording an industrial disease verdict, Mr. Taylor said there
could be no doubt that asbestos had contributed to Mr. Swales'
death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Sussex Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Eastbourne Magistrates Court heard that the death
of 80-year-old Maurice Kelly, a builder from Eastbourne, East
Sussex, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos,
ContractorsCompare.com reports.

Mr. Kelly died earlier in 2009 from a tumor on his lungs after he
was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease mesothelioma.

The Bexhill Observer reported that Mr. Kelly's widow, Diane,
presented a witness statement from her husband to a coroner at
Court, saying that he came into contact with asbestos while
carrying out work at EMI Records 60 years ago.

The statement read, "I was definitely exposed to asbestos while
demolishing a boiler house at the record factory. The dust in
there was terrific; it was all over my clothes and in my hair."

Pathologist Dr. Hassan El Teraifi, who carried out the post
mortem, confirmed that asbestos was the most likely cause of
death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $550T Set Aside for Courthouse Cleanup, Repairs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials in Plymouth, Mass., set aside about US$550,000 for
asbestos cleanup, other remediation, and remodeling of a historic
courthouse, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The officials signed the deal to pay out US$850,000 in exchange
for the courthouse. The historic courthouse, which dates from
1820, will be taken over by town and area commissioners in
November 2009.

The town purchased the building from Plymouth County. The deal
was approved unanimously in a special meeting of the town
selectmen.

In April 2009, a town meeting approved spending up to US$1.4
million of Community Preservation Act money to buy the property.
The current plan for the future of the courthouse involves
renovating and using it in a new way that has yet to be
determined. The US$850,000 purchase price leaves US$550,000 for
the cleanup and remodeling.

The Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce had intended to bid on the
property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkhamsted Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 8, 2009, an inquest at Hatfield Coroner's Court heard
that the death of 72-year-old builder Dennis Weeden, of
Berkhamstead, England, was related to occupational asbestos
exposure, The Gazette reports.

Mr. Weeden cut up asbestos while working for a building firm in
the 1960s, leading to a "fairly substantial" exposure, the
inquest was told. He died at the Hospice of St Francis on June 3,
2009.

Coroner Edward Thomas told the court, "When he was working for a
building company he would come in regular contact with asbestos,
usually cutting up asbestolux and corrugated sheets for garage
roofs. That would have been a major part of his work during that
particular time. He would have been regularly exposed to
asbestos."

Mr. Weeden then went to work for a timber works in the 1970s,
where again he was exposed to asbestos until its dangers became
known.

Mr. Weeden had suffered ill health in the past but the coroner
decided this was not a factor in his death and it was recorded he
died of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Smith, Lowell Schools to Cost $300K
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boise School District Board, on Oct. 12, 2009, approved a
US$300,000 asbestos removal project for two Sioux City, Iowa-
based schools: Smith Elementary School and Lowell Elementary
School, The Sioux City Journal reports.

The Board voted 6-0.

Troy Thomas, purchasing director for the District said the
project will be completed in three stages, starting with Lowell,
which is currently vacant. The second phase is scheduled to begin
at Smith this summer and the third phase will start in spring
2011.

Mr. Thomas said the district needs to remove the asbestos from
Smith before it can demolish the building. Construction is
already under way for the Smith-Everett replacement school, which
is scheduled to open in August 2011.

The District will hold a public hearing on the asbestos removal
project at 6 p.m., Oct. 26, 2009, at the current Education
Service Center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Phoenix, Ariz., Building
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was removed from an unnamed Phoenix, Ariz., building,
which was demolished after cleanup to pave way for a new senior
center/retirement community, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Crews from Advanced Explosives Demolition brought down the
building with no injuries and no damage. John Witt, who is in
charge of the cleanup said, "The bad stuff is gone. 1,000 tons of
asbestos was hauled away and disposed of. What we have here is
probably 1500 tons of steel. We're going to chop up the whole
thing into small enough chunks to haul, and we're going to
recycle the whole thing."

On Oct. 5, 2009, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department said
that the implosion did not cause any significant air quality
problems.

Spokesperson Holly Ward said, "Our monitoring data shows we did
not exceed the standard on Sunday, the day of the implosion."

Because of the prior asbestos removal, there was no concern about
exposure to asbestos dust following the demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered at Cass Street Bridge in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The completion date of the Cass Street bridge project in Tampa,
Fla., has been pushed back to November 2009, due to the presence
of asbestos and corroded steel, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness
Center reports.

The bridge was shut down for repairs earlier in 2009 after it was
deemed "structurally deficient." According to David Vaughn, the
City's contracts administrator, contractors repairing the
Industrial Era drawbridge uncovered more asbestos and corroded
steel that needed to be replaced, which caused the extension of
the project's timeline.

The bridge project, which began in July 2009, will cost a total
of US$1.7 million. The bridge was built in 1927, and has had some
work done over the years. However, prior to this project, the
bridge had not undergone a complete overhaul since 1949.

In 2008, the bridge was listed by inspectors as "structurally
deficient." It was scored by the state Department of
Transportation, receiving a health rating of 74.89, which means
that the bridge is in need of repairs or replacement within six
years.

According to the State DOT, about 12,000 vehicles a day cross the
bridge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Forces Closure of Fulton School in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Students and staff at Fulton High School in Fulton, Ill., were
sent home on Oct. 9, 2009 due to concerns about asbestos
contamination, the Quad-City Times reports.

Superintendent Jane Bauer said the decision was made to evacuate
the school after a staff member removed a floor tile that
contained asbestos without permission. The tile was removed in
the shop area.

Ms. Bauer said the district has contacted the Illinois Department
of Public Health and is working with an asbestos abatement
contractor to address the problem.

The high school has about 300 students.

The school reopened on Oct. 13, 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Rock Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota upheld ruling of the district
court, which favored Joyce E. Rock in asbestos-related
proceedings filed against Bucyrus International, Inc., a
corporation based in Wisconsin.

Judges Jill Halbrooks, Harriet Lansing, and Gordon W. Shumaker
entered judgment in Case No. A08-2222 on Sept. 1, 2009.

Bucyrus employed Dona Rock from 1948 to 1951. Mr. Rock, who died
of mesothelioma on Feb. 18, 2008, may have been exposed to
asbestos during his employment.

Ms. Rock, trustee for Mr. Rock's next-of-kin, may have a claim
against the unknown parties who supplied products containing
asbestos to Bucyrus during the period of Mr. Rock's employment.
Ms. Rock has not commenced an action against Bucyrus.

In March 2008, the district court issued a commission that
allowed Ms. Rock to obtain discovery from Bucyrus in Wisconsin.  
Under this commission, Ms. Rock sought and received a subpoena
from the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Wis. The subpoena
ordered Bucyrus to appear for a deposition and to produce certain
documents. Bucyrus later moved the Wisconsin circuit court to
quash the subpoena.

In June 2008, the Wisconsin circuit court stayed the subpoena but
ordered the parties "to work in good faith to provide
discoverable information and to attempt to work out any
disagreements between them."

During the pendency of these proceedings, Bucyrus moved the
district court for a protective order to prevent the deposition
of Bucyrus' corporate representative.

On Aug. 28, 2008, the district court issued an order that denied
Bucyrus' motion but limited the scope of discovery. Bucyrus then
challenged this order by filing petitions for a writ of
prohibition and for discretionary review with this court. The
District Court denied these petitions without reaching the issue
of whether pre-suit discovery was authorized.

On Oct. 13, 2008, Bucyrus moved the district court to quash the
commission and dismiss the proceedings for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The district court denied this motion, concluding
that it had "broad jurisdictional power in determining all issues
relating to asbestos." Bucyrus appealed.

Robert E. Cattanach, Esq., Michael J. Wahoske, Esq., Colin
Wicker, Esq., of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP in Minneapolis, and Mark
J. Peschel, Esq., Daniel E. Hintz, Esq., of Johnson & Lindberg,
P.A. in Minneapolis, represented Bucyrus International, Inc.

Michael S. Polk, Esq., Michael R. Strom, Esq., Shauna M.
Verheyen, Esq., of Sieben Polk, P.A. in Hastings, Minn.,
represented Joyce E. Rock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Walmach Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which granted a US$2.66
million asbestos-related judgment in favor of Donna Walmach,
Jennifer Orchard, and Julie Pitts.

The case is styled Donna Walmach et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents v. Foster Wheeler, Defendant and Appellant.

Judges H. Walter Croskey, Richard D. Aldrich, and Patti S.
Kitching entered judgment in Case No. B203962 (Consolidated with
Case No. B205820) on Sept. 1, 2009.

Foster Wheeler LLC appealed a US$2.66 million judgment in favor
of the Plaintiffs. Their decedent, Richard Walmach, died of
mesothelioma he contracted from breathing asbestos fibers
contained in products manufactured by Foster Wheeler.

Mr. Richard Walmach began working as an apprentice marine
machinist at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash.
(the shipyard), in February 1965. At the shipyard, he worked as a
civilian employee of the U.S. Navy.

In 1967, Mr. Walmach began serving on active duty in the Navy.
While in the Navy, he worked as a machinery repairman. He spent
most of his time in the Navy stationed in Long Beach, Calif.

In November 1969, Mr. Walmach left the Navy and returned to his
apprenticeship at the shipyard. He completed his apprenticeship
in 1971 and continued to steadily receive promotions as a marine
machinist mechanic at the shipyard and eventually became a
foreman. He retired in March 2002.

Mr. Walmach was also exposed to ambient asbestos while building
his home in the mid-1970s. At that time, he used products
containing asbestos while installing sheet rock.

Mr. Walmach was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in
January 2006. He died from the disease in June 2006. He
contracted mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos.  

Plaintiffs' medical expert testified that Mr. Walmach's exposure
to asbestos released from Foster Wheeler's products was a
significant contributing factor to Mr. Walmach contracting
mesothelioma.

Plaintiffs initially sued over two dozen defendants. However,
plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with, or dismissed, all
of the defendants except Foster Wheeler prior to the commencement
of opening statements at the trial.

The jury awarded plaintiffs US$950,895.26 in economic damages,
US$2.2 million in noneconomic damages, and US$2 million in
punitive damages. The court entered judgment in the amount of
US$2.66 million in favor of plaintiffs and against Foster
Wheeler.

Foster Wheeler filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict and motion for a new trial. Both motions were denied.
Foster Wheeler appealed.

Waters & Kraus, Esq., Paul C. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien,
Esq., represented the Plaintiffs.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Frederick D. Baker, Kelly J.
Savage, Esq.; Brydon, Hugo & Parker, John R. Brydon, Esq., and
James C. Parker, Esq., represented Foster Wheeler.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Upholds Board Ruling in White Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the July
13, 2007 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Tommie L. White service connection for allergies due to asbestos
exposure and paint fumes and other ailments.

The case is styled Tommie L. White, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge William A. Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 07-3394 on
Sept. 1, 2009.

Mr. White served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from November
1982 to November 1986. His separation examination noted mild PFB.
In July 1989, he filed claims for service connection for a right
ear injury and facial skin disease, both of which a VA regional
office (RO) denied in December 1989.

In February 2004, Mr. White sought to reopen his previously
denied claim for service connection for a right ear injury. In
May 2004, the RO denied service connection for allergies as
secondary to asbestos exposure and declined to reopen Mr. White's
previously denied claim for service connection for a right ear
injury. Mr. White continued to appeal.

In May 2005, Mr. White again sought service connection for PFB, a
right ear injury, and allergies related to exposure to paint
fumes. In October 2005, the RO granted service connection for
PFB, with a noncompensable disability rating effective April
2005. The RO denied service connection for allergies due to paint
fumes and abnormal breathing.

White continued to appeal. In July 2007, the Board issued the
decision here on appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forse's Action v. Texaco Filed Oct. 7 in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Forse's widow, Veola Forse, and his 10 children filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against Texaco Inc. on Oct. 7, 2009 in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

In addition to Mrs. Forse, the other plaintiffs named in the suit
are Patricia Beavers, Gwendolyn Walden, Michelle Stansbury,
Steven Forse, Maurice Forse, Rebecca Caswell, William Forse,
Jennifer Phillips, Richard Forse and Floyd J. Forse.

The plaintiffs say Mr. Forse died on March 4, 2008 from an
asbestos-related disease. They allege the disease was caused by
asbestos fibers that Mr. Forse inhaled while working as a
laborer, insulator helper, machinist helper, stillman and press
operator at Texaco in Port Arthur, Tex.

The plaintiffs blame Texaco for causing the disease, alleging the
Company knew about the dangers of asbestos but still allowed its
employees to work around the products. In addition, Texaco failed
to warn Mr. Forse about the dangers of asbestos exposure, the
suit states.

Mrs. Forse and her children seek exemplary and punitive damages,
plus interest, costs and other relief to which they may be
entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Forse family.

Case No. D185-079 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 34 of 66 Buildings in Seoul
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Cho Jung-sik, of the Korean Democratic Party, on Oct. 13,
2009, says that more than half of randomly selected buildings in
Seoul, South Korea, are built with an asbestos substance, The
Korea Times reports.

Mr. Cho based his claims on a Seoul Metropolitan Government
report, which said the asbestos was found in 34 of 66 buildings
randomly selected for inspection.

Among the buildings that tested positive were hospital,
educational and cultural facilities, Mr. Cho said. More than 80
percent of buildings constructed in the 1980s tested positive for
asbestos, while the rate fell to 30 percent among those built
after 2000, he added.

Mr. Cho urged the South Korean Government to ban the use of the
toxic material in construction and manufacturing.

Asbestos was popular among manufacturers and builders in the late
19th century because of its resistance to heat, electrical and
chemical damage, sound absorption and tensile strength.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambridgeshire Inquest Rules on Hornsby's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest on Oct. 9, 2009 in Ely, Cambridgeshire, England, heard
that the death of 60-year-old Peter Hornsby, of Witcham,
Cambridgeshire, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos,
Cambs24 reports.

Mr. Hornsby died peacefully at his Westways Place home at around
on July 15, 2009. A report produced by Papworth Hospital NHS
Trust stated that he had epithelioid malignant mesothelioma.

At the inquest, a statement from Mr. Horsby's widow, Sally, said
he had worked as a carpenter, cabinet maker, as a manager of a
packaging company. He worked for a company named Perfect Pine
between 1998 and 2003 where he fitted kitchens and regularly
worked with pine products.

Mr. Hornsby then moved to Cambridgeshire in 2003 and his health
started to deteriorate but he was reluctant to see doctors.

Mr. Hornsby had told doctors that he had several jobs many years
ago where he may have been exposed to asbestos but he could not
pinpoint where or how.

William Morris, Coroner for North and East Cambridgeshire,
returned a verdict of death through exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Files Liability Claim v. CSR Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V., in a bid to share liability for
illnesses caused by its asbestos products, sued former partner
CSR Limited in Queensland Supreme Court in Queensland, Australia,
The Australian reports.

Hardie's subsidiary, Amaca Pty Ltd (f/k/a James Hardie & Co Pty
Ltd) is suing CSR, a building materials manufacturer, after Amaca
was sued for AUD500,000 in damages by an asbestosis sufferer.

John George Morley, a 72-year-old fitter and turner, sued Amaca,
WorkCover Queensland and his former employers GH Engineering for
in January 2008.

In a statement of claim filed to the Queensland Supreme Court at
the time, Mr. Morley, who worked for GH Engineering between 1952
and 1990, alleges he handled Hardie asbestos products for years
at work.

Mr. Morley claims that as a result of being exposed to and
inhaling asbestos dust, he now suffers from asbestos-related
illnesses, including asbestosis. He claimed his exposure to
asbestos and subsequent injuries were "caused or contributed to"
by Hardie's negligence.

Amaca launched a defense against Mr. Morley's lawsuit, claiming
it did not owe Mr. Morley a duty of care and that Mr. Morley's
injuries were caused by his own "independent and unreasonable
actions."

Mr. Morley discontinued the matter in December 2008 after it was
resolved with an informal, confidential settlement.

Amaca filed the case aimed at equally sharing with CSR any
liability and legal costs incurred by the Morley matter. Amaca
claims it entered into a partnership with CSR on Sept. 24, 1964,
to manufacture, distribute and sell in Australia asbestos-related
products. This relationship continued until May 1974.

Amaca claims that if CSR was sued by Mr. Morley, as a partner,
the Company would have been subject to any liability faced by
Amaca.

Amaca claims CSR was negligent in 11 ways, including that CSR
used or allowed to be used asbestos products when they "knew or
ought to have known" that asbestos products were potentially
dangerous to the health of people who came in contact with them.

Dallas Booth, chief executive of the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund Limited, which manages compensation claims
against James Hardie and its related companies, would not comment
on the specific matter, but said the avenue of liability sharing
was not new.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1st Newman Case Filed on Oct. 1 v. 31 Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Guillory, on behalf of her late father, Ameal Newman, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against 31 defendant corporations in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., on Oct. 1, 2009, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The defendants include: A.W. Chesterton Company, American Optical
Corporation, Ametek Inc., Bayer CropScience AG, Bechtel
Corporation, CBS Corporation, CertainTeed Corporation, Coltec
Industries, Crane Co., Crown Cork and Seal Company, D&F
Distributing, Dana Companies, Fluor Enterprises, Fluor
Maintenance Services, Foster Wheeler Constructors, and Foster
Wheeler Corporation.

Defendants also include: Garlock Sealing Technologies, General
Electric Corporation, General Refractories Company, Goulds Pumps
Incorporated, Henry Vogt Machine Company, Honeywell International
Inc., Industrial Holdings, Ingersoll-Rand Company, John Crane
Inc., 3M Company, Owens Illinois Inc., Sepco Corporation, Treco
Construction Services, Union Carbide Corporation, and Uniroyal.

This is the first asbestos case filed on behalf of Mr. Newman.
Before his death, he filed an asbestos suit, but Mrs. Guillory
brought her complaint on allegations that Mr. Newman died from a
different asbestos-related disease than was named in his previous
lawsuit.

On Oct. 3, 2009, Mrs. Guillory and the rest of Mr. Newman's
children filed a separate asbestos suit and against ExxonMobil.

Mrs. Guillory alleges the defendant companies caused Mr. Newman's
disease because they failed to adequately test their products and
failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos exposure. At the time
the products were manufactured, the defending companies knew of
the hazards associated with asbestos but failed to remove their
products from the market, according to the complaint.

Some defendant companies, like 3M and American Optical
Corporation, failed to provide Mr. Newman with adequate masks to
protect him from the asbestos, while other businesses forced him
to work in close proximity to asbestos, the suit states.

Mrs. Guillory seeks actual and exemplary damages, plus costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which she may
be entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., is representing the Newman children.

Case No. E185-046 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Newman Action Filed in Jefferson on Oct. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
The surviving children of Ameal Newman, on Oct. 7, 2009, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corporation, Mobil
Oil Corp. and Mobil Chemical Co. in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

This is the third asbestos lawsuit filed on behalf of Mr. Newman.

Lynda Guillory, Esther Newman, Carolyn Richmond, Janice Newman
and Willie Newman, Mr. Newman's children, claim he died on Jan.
11, 2008, after he developed lung cancer.

The Newman children allege the disease was caused from asbestos
fibers that Mr. Newman inhaled while working as a pipefitter and
welder at Mobil Oil in Port Arthur, Tex., according to the
complaint.

Mr. Newman's children blame the defendants for causing the
disease, saying the companies knew about the dangers of asbestos
but still allowed their employees to work around the products. In
addition, the defendants failed to warn Mr. Newman about the
dangers of asbestos exposure, the suit states.

The plaintiffs seek exemplary and punitive damages, plus
interest, costs and other relief to which they may be entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Newman children.

Case No. A185-077 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham, 58th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Removed from Fort Collins Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before the demolition of the former Elks Lodge building in Fort
Collins, Colo., can begin, asbestos and mercury abatement will
need to be completed, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority announced that
they plan to demolish the structure that was initially bought to
delay a hotel planned for the downtown area. The building on Oak
Street will be torn down, with work beginning sometime in 2010.

Studies were done regarding the building, and it was ruled that
upgrading the building would be prohibitively expensive,
according to DDA Project Manager Anne Aspen.

The 50,000-square-foot Elks facility was built in 1902. The last
major repairs were conducted in 1978.

The National Center for Craftsmanship will help with the so-
called deconstruction process. NCC Executive Director, Neil
Kaufman, said, "Our pioneering DeConstruct training model has
allowed us the opportunity to take deconstruction to the next
level."

The DDA is weighing several options for the site, including a
community marketplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit Filed Against Westshore Hotel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Vorhees, a former employee of The Westshore Hotel in Tampa,
Fla., filed a lawsuit claiming the hotel knowingly exposed its
employees and occupants to a dangerous work environment of
asbestos, mildew and mold, News Channel 8 reports.

The case was filed in September 2009 in Hillsborough Circuit
Court.

A News Channel 8 investigation in April 2009 revealed a mold
infestation problem and potential asbestos exposure at the hotel.
Mr. Voorhees told WFLA-TV that Super Bowl visitors stayed at the
hotel on West Shore Boulevard.

Sam Medina, a former hotel maintenance worker, recalls hotel
employees readying black moldy rooms for Super Bowl guests. He
said, "We had spray bottles full of bleach, just regular house
bleach that you can buy at any kind of store. We went in and
tried to spray down the walls."

According to the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office,
Westshore Hotel Property LLC owns the hotel. Its address is UBS
Real Estate Securities in New York.

The hotel was in mortgage foreclosure in December 2008. UBS, the
mortgage lender, told a judge that the previous owner of the
hotel, Fuel and Shubh Capital Management Delaware LLC, failed to
maintain the hotel and at least 40 of the 235 guest rooms were
mold infested. The court appointed Janus Hotels and Resorts Inc.
to run the hotel for UBS.

Deborah Chamberlin, Janus vice-president of operations, said
Janus hired a licensed mold remediation company in January 2009
when it took over management of the hotel. Rooms with mold, she
said, were closed to guests.

Mr. Voorhees is even more concerned about possible asbestos
exposure. He said, "I was definitely directly handling asbestos
with no protection 'cause I didn't know it was there."

Janus confirmed that the dropped ceiling tiles in guest bathrooms
contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wokingham Council Tenants "At Risk" From Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Audit Commission's progress report on Wokingham Borough
Council's tenant services department highlighted issues that put
residents in the borough's 2,800 council homes at risk from
asbestos exposure, getwokingham reports.

The department is "crippled" by a lack of funding, according to
Wokingham Liberal Democrat Councilor Prue Bray, and the funding
system must change in order for homes to be brought up to modern
standards.

The report, published in September 2009, reviews progress made by
the department following recommendations in an inspection report
in 2008.

The council's cash flow problem stems from the United Kingdom
Government's housing revenue system, which demands Wokingham pay
back nearly half of the GBP10 million it receives in rent.

The report also found the department has made limited or no
progress on its asbestos register and management and states,
"Tenants and contractors have not been given information about
the presence of asbestos in homes and information has not been
made available to tenants. This is potentially placing the health
and safety of both tenants and contractors at risk."

The Council is already undertaking a survey that will locate
asbestos, identify it by type and deal with it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Welling Worker Gets GBP110T in Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of an unnamed school cleaner, who had worked at
Welling Secondary School in Kent, England, was awarded GBP110,000
in asbestos-related compensation, FMworld reports.

The woman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2008 and died
in June 2008 at the age of 81. She was exposed to asbestos while
working as a cleaner at Welling Secondary School between 1972 and
1988.

The building where the woman cleaned had asbestos in the internal
partition walls that had been disturbed by drawing pins and
general wear and tear.

At no point was the woman warned of the dangers of her working
environment and nothing was done by her employer to protect her
from exposure.

The woman's daughter, who pursued the compensation claim on her
mother's behalf, said, "It is terrifying to think that my mum was
exposed to asbestos while working in a school. You expect
classrooms to be a safe haven for children but working there
caused mum to suffer a painful illness and death many years
later."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Transportation Seeks Renewal of Harron Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation Inc. will call for the reversal of District
Judge Frederick Stamp's cancellation of their asbestos-related
fraud conspiracy trial against radiologist Ray Harron of
Bridgeport, W.Va., and the law firm of Robert Peirce, Esq., The
West Virginia Record reports.

The Fourth Circuit appeals court in Richmond, Va., docketed CSX's
appeal on Oct. 5, 2009. Judge Stamp called off the trial in
September 2009, three weeks before it would have started.

Judge Stamp wrote on Sept. 15, 2009, "CSX cannot produce evidence
sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that CSX relied upon the
defendants' alleged fraudulent act."

CSX claimed Mr. Harron fabricated evidence in an asbestos
exposure suit that Mr. Peirce filed for Earl Baylor of Tennessee
in Harrison County.

Mr. Harron achieved national notoriety by claiming Fifth
Amendment privilege against self incrimination before Congress
and in depositions.

Four years ago, U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi,
Tex., found that Mr. Harron diagnosed asbestosis and silicosis
from the same X-ray, thousands of times. He has lost his license
in seven states.

In West Virginia, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Recht
stands ready to clear state courts of Harron cases. In September
2009, he offered to grant motions from CSX to dismiss suits that
relied on Mr. Harron's X-rays.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Schneiderhan Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split
rulings in the case involving asbestos styled Michael P.
Schneiderhan, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Robert N. Davis entered judgment in Case No. No. 07-3111 on
Aug. 31, 2009.

U.S. Navy veteran Michael P. Schneiderhan appealed from a July
23, 2007, Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that:

-- Denied Mr. Schneiderhan's service-connection claims for a
   low-back disability and sleep apnea,

-- Denied an increased rating in excess of 30 percent for a
   right shoulder disability, and

-- Declined to reopen a service-connection claim for tinnitus.

This appeal was timely, and the Court had jurisdiction to review
the Board's decision.

The Court affirmed in part and set aside in part the Board's
August 2006 decision, and remanded for further adjudication the
issues of service connection for sleep apnea secondary to
asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allen Remand Bid Denied in Case v. Buffalo, GE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, denied Samuel
Allen and 11 other plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court an
asbestos case filed against Buffalo Pumps, Inc. and General
Electric Company.

The case is styled Samuel Allen, et al., Plaintiffs v. General
Electric Co. and Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendants.

District Judge Janet C. Hall entered judgment in Civil Action No.
3-09-CV-0497J on Aug. 27, 2009.

On March 3, 2009, Mr. Allen and the other plaintiffs filed a
personal injury action in the Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport.

On March 27, 2009, Buffalo Pumps removed this case to federal
court. On March 30, 2009, General Electric joined in the petition
for removal.

Plaintiffs are 12 men who were employed by General Dynamics
Corporation, Electric Boat Division, in Groton, Conn., for
various periods between 1956 and the present. All worked in areas
where they were exposed to asbestos and now suffer from asbestos-
related diseases such as lung cancer, lung disease, asbestosis,
and loss of lung function.

Plaintiffs alleged that their exposure to asbestos came at least
in part from products the defendants manufactured for the Navy.

Buffalo Pumps manufactured and supplied pumps for Navy ships
under contracts which included specifications for the use of
asbestos. GE manufactured marine steam turbines for use on Navy
ships and submarines under detailed specifications and contracts,
which included directions for the use of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wight Remand Bid Denied in Case v. Buffalo, GE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, denied
plaintiffs Louise Wight and Gail Bettencourt's motion to remand
to state court an asbestos case filed against Buffalo Pumps, Inc.
and General Electric Company.

The case is styled Louise Wight, et al., Plaintiffs v. General
Electric Co., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Janet C. Hall entered judgment in Civil Action No.
3-09-cv-0645 (JCH) on Aug. 27, 2009.

On March 12, 2009, Ms. Wight and Ms. Bettencourt, the executor
for the estate of Howard Wight, filed a personal injury action in
the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at
Bridgeport.

Buffalo Pumps received service of the Complaint on March 23,
2009, and removed this case to federal court on April 21, 2009.
On April 24, General Electric joined in the petition for removal.

The motion for remand was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Perez Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark County,
issued various rulings in litigation involving asbestos styled In
re Estate of Thomas Perez.

Judges William B. Hoffman, Julie A. Edwards, and Sheila G. Farmer
entered judgment in Case No. 2008 CA 00081 on Aug. 31, 2009.

Joseph Perez, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of
Thomas Perez, appealed the March 18, 2008 Judgment Entry of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, in favor of
Appellee Thomas B. Perez.

Thomas Perez died of lung cancer on April 29, 1999, survived by
two adult children: Thomas B. Perez and Cynthia Moldovan. Thomas
Perez's sole surviving sibling is Appellant Joseph Perez. Thomas
Perez's last will and testament named Joseph Perez as the sole
beneficiary.

On March 30, 2004, Joseph Perez was appointed executor of the
Estate of Thomas Perez (hereinafter "the Estate.") The only asset
of the Estate was the wrongful death claim for asbestosis against
various tortfeasors stemming from Thomas Perez's employment at
Republic Steel Technologies.

Joseph Perez participated in the asbestos litigation, in which
various settlements were reached with different tortfeasors at
different times. Each separate settlement required approval of
the probate court.

Three applications to approve settlement and distribution were
filed in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Probate
Division. On Sept. 13, 2004, the first application listed Thomas
B. Perez, Mrs. Moldovan, and Joseph Perez as the wrongful death
beneficiaries and contained a recommendation by Joseph Perez that
the proceeds be divided equally between the survival claim and
the wrongful death claim, and that Joseph Perez be found to be
the only wrongful death beneficiary who had suffered a loss.

The trial court conducted a hearing, and divided the settlement
proceeds equally between the survival claim and the wrongful
death claim. The Estate is the sole beneficiary of the survival
claim, and Joseph Perez was found to be the only beneficiary of
the wrongful death claim who suffered a loss.

On Jan. 3, 2005, the second application was filed with the
Probate Court. The trial court conducted a hearing, and on March
2, 2005, divided the proceeds equally between the survival claim
for which the Estate is the sole beneficiary, and the wrongful
death claim for which Joseph Perez was again found to be the only
beneficiary who suffered a loss.

On March 23, 2005, the third application was filed with the
Probate Court. At the May 23, 2005 hearing, Thomas B. Perez
appeared, and requested the trial court continue the hearing and
vacate the two previous entries approving the prior applications.
The trial court denied the motions to vacate.

Thomas B. Perez appealed to this Court, which remanded the matter
to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the
motions to vacate.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Probate Court conducted the hearing on the
motions to vacate, and denied the motion to vacate as to the
second application.

On Feb. 15, 2007, the trial court vacated the distribution
relative to the first application. The court then set a hearing
on the first and third applications. Thomas B. Perez did not
appeal the Feb. 15, 2007 Judgment Entry denying vacation of the
second application.

On June 4, 2007, Joseph Perez requested the Probate Court apply
the doctrine of res judicata to the first and third applications,
and apply the allocations set forth in the second application to
the first and third.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Probate Court allocated all of the proceeds
of both the first and third applications to the wrongful death
claim, and ordered Thomas B. Perez receive 80 percent and Joseph
Perez receive 20 percent of the proceeds. Upon request of Joseph
Perez, the probate court issued findings of fact and conclusions
of law on March 18, 2008.

Joseph Perez filed his notice of appeal on April 15, 2008.

The trial court erred in not applying the doctrine of res
judicata in the distribution of the first and third applications.
The first and second assignments of error were sustained, the
March 18, 2008 Judgment Entry was reversed and the matter was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance
with the law and this opinion.

The Appeals Court found the arguments raised in the third, fourth
and fifth assignments of error moot.

Marjorie R. Perlman, Esq., in Canton, Ohio, represented Joseph
Perez, Individually.

Sharon V. Fladen, Esq., in Canton, Ohio, represented Joseph
Perez, Executor of The Estate of Thomas Perez.

Stanley R. Rubin, Esq., in Canton, Ohio, represented Thomas B.
Perez.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. TH Agriculture Plan Resolved in 3rd-Qtr
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. says that, in the third
quarter of 2009, the opposition filed against subsidiary TH
Agriculture & Nutrition's (THAN) plan of reorganization has been
successfully resolved.

Provided that there will be no further opposition to the Plan, it
is expected that the U.S. District Court will affirm the Plan in
the coming weeks, in which case the Plan would become effective
in the fourth quarter, triggering THAN and Philips Electronics
North America Corporation's obligation to fund an asbestos
personal injury trust with US$900 million (around EUR600
million).

The Company has already provided for this amount, according to
its report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 14, 2009.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics) makes consumer
electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines.
The Company also makes light bulbs, electric shavers and other
personal care appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and
silicon systems solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goates Lawsuit v. Chevron Filed Oct. 7 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit on behalf of Marvin Goates was filed against
Chevron Corporation on Oct. 7, 2009 in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Goates' widow, Ginger Goates, and his children (Carolyn
Blackmon, Linda Dickinson, Katherine Goates and Jody Wilkerson)
claim he died on Feb. 28, 2008, after he developed pulmonary
asbestosis and lung cancer.

According to the suit, the Goates family alleges the diseases
were caused from asbestos fibers that Mr. Goates inhaled while
working as a pipefitter helper, insulator trainee and instrument
mechanic at Gulf Oil Corporation in Port Arthur, Tex.

The plaintiffs blame Chevron for causing the disease, saying the
Company knew about the dangers of asbestos but still allowed its
employees to work around the products. In addition, Chevron
failed to warn Mr. Goates about the dangers of asbestos exposure,
the suit states.

Mrs. Goates and the children seek exemplary and punitive damages,
plus interest, costs and other relief to which they may be
entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Goates family.

Case No. D185-076 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilcher Case v. Chevron Filed in Jefferson Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed on behalf of Malcolm E. Pilcher against
Chevron Corporation was filed in Jefferson County District Court,
Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Pilcher's widow, Joan Pilcher, and his children (Deborah
Lackey, Michael Pilcher and Bruce Pilcher) claim Mr. Pilcher died
on June 19, 2009 after he developed pulmonary asbestosis and
rectal cancer.

According to the complaint, the diseases were caused from
asbestos fibers that Mr. Pilcher inhaled while working at Gulf
Oil Corporation in Port Arthur, Tex.

The Pilcher family blames Chevron for causing the disease,
alleging the Company knew about the dangers of asbestos but still
allowed its employees to work around the products. In addition,
Chevron failed to warn Mr. Pilcher about the dangers of asbestos
exposure, the suit states.

The Pilcher family seeks exemplary and punitive damages, plus
interest, costs and other relief to which they may be entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Pilcher family.

Case No. D185-078 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pickles, ATS to be Probed for Botched Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australasian Technical Services (an asbestos removal company) and
Pickles Auctions (an auction house in Canberra, Australia) will
be investigated over the removal of asbestos from a Fyshwick
warehouse, ABC News reports.

Pickles contracted ATS to remove asbestos from the warehouse's
roof.

However, on Oct. 9, 2009, the site was shut down by the Office of
Regulatory Services (ORS) after 12 workers were found removing
asbestos without appropriate safety equipment or protective gear.

On Oct. 12, 2009, it was confirmed samples taken from around the
site contained asbestos dust.

Jon Quiggan from the ORS says their priority is cleaning up the
site.

Mr. Quiggan said, "There are some very strict guidelines. In many
ways it's up to the individual companies to ensure that they're
complying with those particular regulations and the code of
practice. "In terms of how that's enforced, it is simply not
possible for us to be everywhere, every time that work is being
undertaken."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe on Docking of U.S. Ship in Alang Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Platinum II, a U.S.-registered ship allegedly containing asbestos
anchored near the ship-breaking yard at Alang forced India's
Forest and Environment Ministry to seek an inquiry report from
Gujarat Maritime Board, newKerala.com reports.

The Alang port is located off the coast of Gujarat, India.

The 18,000 ton-capacity ship contained toxic materials including
about 200 tons of asbestos.

According to environment activists, Indian Platform on Shipping,
the ship was clandestinely being towed to the port, but an
accident while it was being towed on Oct. 7, 2009 by a tug
exposed the wrongdoing.

Forest and Environment Ministry has directed the Maritime Board
to conduct an inquiry and submit a report, official sources said,
adding the Gujarat Pollution Control Board officials also
inspected the 682-feet long ship, which was earlier named "SS
Oceanic."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Rochester's Midtown Plaza Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement of the existing buildings at the Midtown
Rising Project site in Rochester, N.Y., is now underway,
JusticeNewsFlash.com reports.

The project is part of ongoing redevelopment to make way for
PAETEC, a telecommunications company.

Cambria, the asbestos contractor, continues identifying,
containing, and removing asbestos fibers from 1.4 million sq. ft.
of retail-commercial space. Cambria was hired to deal with the
evaluation, demolition, and removal of some 15,000 tons of
asbestos materials present in the current structures at the
Midtown Plaza Redevelopment site in upstate New York.

The Rochester, N.Y., asbestos abatement project is expected to
take at least 12 months to complete. The Governor of New York
pledged to provide up to US$65 million for asbestos removal and
demolition.

A 2006 study into the cost of removing tiles, insulation,
flooring, drywall, and other asbestos containing building
materials was estimated at a minimum of US$40 million.

The certified asbestos abatement technician with Cambria will
oversee demolition and construction workers using some of the
following various techniques while containing and removing the
toxic materials:

-- Wet removal
-- Negative air pressure
-- Decontamination units
-- Sealing off floors and walkways
-- Air quality monitoring

Because no amount of asbestos exposure to humans is safe, once
the asbestos materials have been removed and contained it will be
transported to certified landfills for proper disposal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Mancuso Asbestos Case to Start Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal asbestos trial against brothers Paul and Steven
Mancuso and their father, Lester Mancuso, is expected to begin in
U.S. District Court on Oct. 19, 2009, with the selection of the
jury, the Observer-Dispatch reports.

Witness testimony is expected to begin on Oct. 20, 2009.

On Oct. 13, 2009, a federal judge ruled that he found no proof a
government agent knowingly provided false statements to get a
search warrant in connection with the alleged Mancuso family
asbestos cover-up conspiracy.

During the Oct. 13, 2009 hearing in Syracuse, N.Y., Patrick
Fraccola, a former agent with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, stood by the information he believed was true at the time
he provided applications to search the Mancuso business offices.

Based on the warrants in question, Paul Mancuso's Genesee Street
business office and Belle Avenue residence were searched in 2005
- leading seven months later to a search of the Genesee Street
law office of his brother, Steven Mancuso.

The Mancuso men have since been indicted by the U.S. Attorney's
Office in connection with an asbestos-removal cover-up scheme.

Among the issues during the hearing was was whether Mr. Fraccola
knowingly failed to disclose his prior familiarity with Paul
Mancuso as a witness for the EPA, and whether Mr. Fraccola did
not tell the truth about his knowledge of Paul Mancuso's
restrictions in handling asbestos activities.

Paul Mancuso, previously convicted of violating asbestos removal
laws and insurance fraud, is charged with now violating a court
order to never become involved in asbestos-related work. The
alleged concealment of his role in several asbestos removal
companies then resulted in further allegations that his brother
and father also were involved.

In Mr. Fraccola's affidavit, he stated that he was first alerted
to Paul Mancuso's alleged illegal asbestos activity in October
2005 when a state trooper located a man, David Comstock, who was
dumping asbestos waste on a rural property in Poland.

During the interview, Mr. Comstock reportedly told Mr. Fraccola
that he was performing such work at the request of his "bosses,"
Paul Mancuso and a second brother, Ronald Mancuso.

At issue in Mr. Fraccola's affidavit, however, was when he stated
that Paul Mancuso was unable to obtain an asbestos license in his
name, or any company controlled by him, after pleading guilty in
2003 to violating the federal Clean Air Act.

During the hearing, Paul Mancuso's attorney, John Casey, Esq.,
wondered why Mr. Fraccola never told the federal judge of a 2004
restriction when applying for a search warrant.

Mr. Fraccola also failed to inform the judge that 27 pounds of
asbestos ultimately were found at the Poland dumping site, far
less than the 300 pounds of asbestos Mr. Fraccola had initially
estimated, Paul Mancuso argued.

When questioned why this correction had not been conveyed to the
judge, Mr. Fraccola told prosecutors that one pound of asbestos
still would have been sufficient for a federal conviction.

One issue Mr. Casey attempted to explore before he was cut off by
Senior U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. was the fact
that Mr. Fraccola no longer works for the EPA.

In 2008, Mr. Fraccola was placed under investigation at the EPA
because he was "less than fully candid" about his simultaneous
off-duty work with the Frankfort Village Police Department,
according to prosecutors. Mr. Fraccola ultimately resigned from
the EPA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Remands Wring Action to Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, remanded
an asbestos case filed by Harold Wring and Gloria to the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill.

The case is styled Harold Wring and Gloria Wring, Plaintiffs v.
A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered judgment n Civil Action
No. 09-664-GPM on Aug. 31, 2009.

Mr. Wring sought damages under theories of negligence and strict
products liability for personal injuries he has suffered
allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos. Mrs. Wring
asserted derivative claims for loss of consortium.

The Wrings brought suit originally in the Circuit Court of the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Defendant
Detroit Diesel Corporation had removed their claims against it to
this Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Remands Diaz Case to Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, remanded
Jesse Diaz's asbestos lawsuit to the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill.

The case is styled Jesse Diaz, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton,
Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-662-GPM on Aug. 31, 2009.

Mr. Diaz sought damages under theories of negligence and strict
products liability for personal injuries he has suffered
allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos. He brought suit
originally in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit,
Madison County, Ill., and Defendant Detroit Diesel Corporation
removed his claims against it to this Court.

Detroit Diesel asserted that federal subject matter jurisdiction
was proper on the basis of federal bankruptcy jurisdiction
because Detroit Diesel has a right to be indemnified by its co-
Defendant in Mr. Diaz's state-court proceeding General Motors
Corporation, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
a federal court in New York on June 1, 2009.

The Court's review of the notice of removal and the record of
this case led it to conclude that the case must be remanded to
state court under principles of permissive abstention and
equitable remand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Remands Funk Case to Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, remanded
an asbestos lawsuit filed by Tammy Funk on behalf of her deceased
father, Carlis Kinney, to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Ill.

The case is styled Tammy Funk, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Carlis Kinney, Deceased, Plaintiff
v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-660-GPM on Aug. 31, 2009.

Ms. Funk sought damages under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act,
the Illinois Survival Act, and the Illinois Rights of Married
Persons Act, in connection with the death of Mr. Kinney from
mesothelioma caused by alleged exposure to asbestos.

Ms. Funk's claims were sued on originally in the Circuit Court of
the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Defendant
Detroit Diesel Corporation removed her claims against it to this
Court.

Detroit Diesel asserted that federal subject matter jurisdiction
was proper on the basis of federal bankruptcy jurisdiction
because Detroit Diesel had a right to be indemnified by its co-
Defendant in Ms. Funk's state-court proceeding General Motors
Corporation, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
a federal court in New York on June 1, 2009.

The Court's review of the notice of removal and the record of
this case led it to conclude that the case must be remanded to
state court under principles of permissive abstention and
equitable remand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Remands Yates Action to Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, remanded
an asbestos case filed on behalf of Terry Yates to the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill.

The case is styled Barbara Yates, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Terry Yates, Deceased, Plaintiff
v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-659-GPM on Aug. 31, 2009.

Barbara Yates, Mr. Yates' widow, sought damages under the
Illinois Wrongful Death Act, the Illinois Survival Act, and the
Illinois Rights of Married Persons Act, in connection with the
death of Mr. Yates from cancer allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos.

Mrs. Yates brought suit originally in the Circuit Court of the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Defendant
Detroit Diesel Corporation removed her claims against it to this
Court.

Detroit Diesel asserted that federal subject matter jurisdiction
was proper on the basis of federal bankruptcy jurisdiction
because Detroit Diesel has a right to be indemnified by its co-
Defendant in Mrs. Yates' state-court proceeding General Motors
Corporation, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
a federal court in New York on June 1, 2009.

The Court's review of the notice of removal and the record of
this case led it to conclude that the case must be remanded to
state court under principles of permissive abstention and
equitable remand.

                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *