CAR_Public/091030.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 215
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIR: Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Remains Pending
BOEING CO: Still Faces Suit Over Sale of Wichita Plant to Spirit
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's "Nonviolation" Ruling
BOEING CO: Seeks Decertification in "VIP Plan" Illinois Lawsuit

CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia
DIRECTV GROUP: Settlement Final Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 25
GREAT ATLANTIC: To Seek Decertification in Workers Overtime Suit
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plumbing Tubes Suit Settlement Hearing Set

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded "Skinner" Lawsuit Remains Pending
NUTRACEA: Wants Amended Consolidated Class Action Dismissed
PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Dispositive Motions Due Today

WELLS FARGO: Technical Support Worker Class is Certified

                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Naggar Realty Fined $18,050 for Cleanup Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Cites $205M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Has $757M Non-Current Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Involved in Insurance Coverage Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.915B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Corp., Units Still Face Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ENSCO Still Has Exposure Cases in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $1.559B Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CertainTeed Claims Decrease to 66T at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gordon-Smith Workers Indicted for CAA Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auburn Landlord Charged for Cleanup Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $120,000 Estimated as Reitz Union Cleanup Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. School Claims Liability for Asbestos Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard at Metropolitan Police Building in D.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Clemmer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in O'Neil Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chem. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Records $870M NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $340M NARCO Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bendix Decrease to 48,622 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Sept. 30 Liabilities at $1.7 Bil.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $38M Litigation Charges at 3Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Has 1,743 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Martin Continues to Face Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $49M for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Has No AMSF Accrual at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Gets $90MM Payments in 3rd-Qtr.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Board Ruling in State Insurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Rulings in DiBenedetto Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in Abrams, Shaw Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Cites $5M Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $18.4M for Bankruptcy in 3rd-Qtr.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 70,282 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still to Pursue Appeal in Baccus' Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Woodard Claim v. Crane Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $86.1M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Long-Term Sept. 30 Liability at $760.2M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cites $24.86M Sept. 30 Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reorganization Plan in Congoleum Filed Oct. 22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Facing 26 Pending Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 517 Cases Ongoing v. Celanese Units at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cases Drop to 1,620 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Has Cases in Mississippi

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U. S. Steel Facing 465 Active Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inactive Quaker Chem. Unit Faces Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Lawsuit v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Cases Filed in Madison Co. During Oct. 12-16

ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Coal Miner's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Carbide Worker to Get Award on Monthly Basis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Elgin Owner Facing Fines for Cleanup Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otway's Claim for GBP150,000 v. Nestle Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prendergast Charged for W.Va. Abatement Breach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CO WATCH Probe on Denver Water Incident Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe on Allegations of AUD57T "Bribe" Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $956Mil for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court OKs Remand Bid in Madden Action

                            *********

AMERICAN AIR: Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York's
decision in favor of American Airlines, Inc. and the Association
of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA).

On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint that was
subsequently amended on November 30, 2004, was filed against the
company and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants,
the union which represents American's flight attendants.  The
case is Ann M. Marcoux, et al., v. American Airlines Inc., et al.
filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of the company's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside and to obtain damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).
The RPA was one of three labor agreements that the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing for
bankruptcy in 2003.

In a related case captioned Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWA
Airlines, LLC, et al., also in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, the court denied a
preliminary injunction against implementation of the RPA on Sept.
30, 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the APFA and the
company relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA
by individual APFA members, including:

     (i) violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
         Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's Constitution and
         By-laws, violation by the APFA of its duty of fair
         representation to its members,

    (ii) violation by American of provisions of the Railway
         Labor Act (RLA) through improper coercion of flight
         attendants into voting or changing their vote for
         ratification, and

   (iii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

On July 22, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to
American and APFA concerning the remaining claimed violations of
the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American and
the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the
APFA of a breach of its constitution).

A notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the purported class of
flight attendants.

On Sept. 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in favor of
American and the APFA.

It is not known whether the plaintiffs intend to take further
efforts in their litigation, according to American Airlines' Oct.
21, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- is the principal  
subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common stock is owned
by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger airline.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided scheduled jet service
to approximately 150 destinations throughout North America, the
Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and Asia.  American is also a
scheduled air freight carrier, providing a range of freight and
mail services to shippers throughout its system onboard
American's passenger fleet.  In September 2008, the company
announced that it has completed the sale of American Beacon
Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset-management subsidiary, to
Lighthouse Holdings, Inc.


BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face a putative class action
complaint over the hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., according to the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On March 2, 2006, the company served with a complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that
hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. near the time
of the company's sale of the Wichita facility were tainted by age
discrimination, violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
violated the company's collective bargaining agreements, and
constituted retaliation.

The case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
not hired by Spirit.

While the company believes that Spirit has an obligation to
indemnify Boeing for claims relating to the 2005 sales
transaction, Spirit has refused to indemnify Boeing for all
claims arising from employment activity prior to Jan. 1, 2005.

On June 4, 2008, claims by individuals who filed consents to join
the Age Discrimination Employment Act collective action and were
terminated by Boeing prior to Jan. 1, 2005 were dismissed by
stipulated order.

On June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for certain former Boeing employees at the Wichita,
Tulsa and McAlester facilities over the age of 40 who were laid
off between Jan. 1, 2005 and July 1, 2005, and were not hired by
Spirit on June 17, 2005.

On July 31, 2009, Boeing filed motions opposing class
certification and seeking dismissal of the ERISA and breach of
contract claims.

On Aug. 14, 2009, Boeing filed a motion seeking dismissal, or in
the alternative, decertification of the age claims.

Plaintiffs' reply brief on certification of ERISA Section 510 and
Labor-Management Relations Act Section 301 classes was filed on
Aug. 28, 2009.

Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiffs' ERISA Section 510 and LMRA Section 301 claims was
filed on Sept. 11, 2009.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Still Faces Suit Over Sale of Wichita Plant to Spirit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged class action involving The Boeing Co.'s sale of the
Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

The case, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, is also brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and, in general, claims
that the company has not properly provided benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
on June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class.

On July 14, 2008, the Court granted class certification for the
purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who
went to work for Spirit, and deferred class certification motions
for the class of employees who did not go to work for Spirit.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 21, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's "Nonviolation" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against The Boeing Co. filed
a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on the
District Court's ruling that the retiree medical benefits were
not vested lifetime benefits and that the 2006 changes to
benefits did not violate the 2005 collective bargaining
agreement, according to the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee alleging that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants
seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that we have the legal
right to make changes to these medical benefits.  On June 4,
2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that its case be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Court granted the UAW's motion to amend the
complaint to drop the retirees' claim for vested lifetime
benefits based on successive collective bargaining agreements and
instead allege that the current collective bargaining agreement
is the sole alleged source of rights to retiree medical benefits.

Both parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16,
2007 and filed briefs on class certification on Feb. 28, 2008.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27,
2008.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court certified a class of retirees for
all claims.

On Sept. 9, 2009, the court granted Boeing's motion and ruled
that the retiree medical benefits were not vested lifetime
benefits and that the 2006 changes to benefits did not violate
the 2005 collective bargaining agreement.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Seeks Decertification in "VIP Plan" Illinois Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co.'s motion to decertify the class certification in a
lawsuit concerning the Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan
remains pending, according to the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company Voluntary
Investment Plan, alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the
VIP Plan were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred
solely for the benefit of the VIP Plan and its participants, and
were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, which the company
opposed.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint, which complaint added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of Lively v. Dynegy, Inc., was lifted on April 3, 2008,
after notification that the Lively case had settled.

On April 16, 2008, plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint, which the company opposed, which would add
investment performance allegations.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file
their second amended complaint to add investment performance
allegations.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class of current, past and future participants or
beneficiaries in the VIP Plan.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
to dismiss claims arising prior to Sept. 27, 2000 based on the
ERISA statute of limitations.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company filed a petition for leave to
appeal the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The plaintiffs opposed this motion and it is currently pending
before the court of appeals.

On Jan. 15, 2009, the company filed a motion seeking dismissal of
all claims as a matter of law.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Boeing's motion for leave to appeal the class certification
order.

The district court entered a stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending resolution of the class certification appeal.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. and three other major U.S. railroads continue to face a
consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia over allegations that the individual
railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws.

Since 2007, at least 30 putative class action suits have been
filed in various federal district courts against CSX
Transportation, CSX Corp.'s principal operating company, and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads.  The lawsuits contain
substantially similar allegations to the effect that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.

The suits seek unquantified treble damages, three times the
amount of actual damages, allegedly sustained by purported class
members, attorneys' fees and other relief.  All but three of the
lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of shippers
that allegedly purchased rail freight transportation services
from the defendants through the use of contracts or through other
means exempt from rate regulation during defined periods
commencing as early as June 2003 and that were assessed fuel
surcharges.  Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of
indirect purchasers of rail services.

The class action suits have been consolidated in federal court in
the District of Columbia.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were
heard in October 2008.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the Court denied the railroads' Motion to
Dismiss the claims of shippers who directly purchased
transportation services.  On Dec. 31, 2009, the Court granted in
part the railroads' Motion to Dismiss the claims of indirect
purchasers who made purchases from railroad shippers rather than
directly from the railroads.

While the Court found that indirect purchasers' state law claims
for money damages are preempted by federal law, it also found
that they had stated a federal antitrust claim for injunctive
relief.

On Jan. 16, 2009, on motion by the indirect plaintiffs, the Court
entered final judgment on the state law claims which allow the
indirect plaintiffs to seek an immediate appeal.  The Court also
stayed proceedings relating to the claim for injunctive relief
appeal.

Now that the Motion to Dismiss has been decided, discovery will
move forward.  The railroads intend to ask the Court to first
proceed with discovery relating to whether the case is
appropriate to certify as a class action and only if a class is
certified would merit discovery takes place.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 19, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2009.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Fla., is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services. The company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern
states and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70
ocean, river and lake ports.


DIRECTV GROUP: Settlement Final Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set a hearing
on Nov. 25, 2009, to consider final approval of the Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release entered into
by all of the parties, including The DIRECTV Group, Inc. to the
action In re The DirecTV Group, Inc., Shareholder Litig.,
Consolid. C.A. No. 4581-VCP, according to the company's Oct. 20,
2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 4, 2009, DIRECTV and Liberty Media Corporation, together
with certain affiliated entities, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3, 2009 to combine, subject to
shareholder and regulatory approval, DIRECTV with Liberty
Entertainment, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Media
to create a new corporation called DIRECTV.

Between May 12, 2009 and May 19, 2009, a total of four proposed
shareholder class actions were filed in the Court against
DIRECTV, Liberty Media, LEI, and certain present and former
members of the Board of Directors of DIRECTV:

     1. John C. Malone,
     2. Gregory B. Maffei,
     3. Mark D. Carleton,
     4. Neil R. Austrian,
     5. Ralph F. Boyd, Jr.,
     6. Chase Carey,
     7. Charles R. Lee,
     8. Peter A. Lund,
     9. Nancy S. Newcomb, and
    10. Haim Saban.

The class actions allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties owed
by other Defendants, to DIRECTV and its unaffiliated
shareholders, in connection with the negotiation and execution of
the Merger Agreement, in which actions the named plaintiffs
generally sought declaratory relief that Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties by other Defendants, injunctive relief to
prevent such breaches, damages, and/or fees and expenses.

On May 22, 2009, the Court consolidated the Delaware Actions
under the caption In re The DirecTV Group, Inc., Shareholder
Litig., Consolid. C.A. No. 4581-VCP, and appointed Co-Lead
Counsel and Plaintiffs' Executive Committee to prosecute the
consolidated Action on behalf of Plaintiffs and the proposed
class.

On June 8, 2009, New DIRECTV filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement on
Form S-4, which included a preliminary joint proxy statement and
prospectus in order to solicit approval of the Merger.

On June 19, 2009, Co-Lead Counsel filed a Verified Consolidated
Class Action Complaint against Defendants alleging that
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
the breach of fiduciary duties owed by other Defendants, to
DIRECTV and its unaffiliated shareholders, in connection with the
negotiation and execution of the Merger Agreement, and that the
disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Joint Proxy and
Prospectus were materially inaccurate and misleading.

The Consolidated Complaint generally sought declaratory relief
that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by other Defendants,
injunctive relief to prevent such breaches, damages, and fees and
expenses.

On July 30, 2009, Aug. 27, 2009, and Oct. 2, 2009, New DIRECTV
filed with the SEC, respectively, Amendments No. 1, 2 and 3 to
Form S-4, which included an amended preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus, which included additional disclosures
addressing certain of the statements and omissions alleged by
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Complaint to be materially
misleading.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the parties submitted a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, which resulted
in the Court entering a scheduling order in this Action on Oct.
19, 2009.

On Oct. 16, 2009, all of the parties to the action In re The
DirecTV Group, Inc., Shareholder Litig., Consolid. C.A. No. 4581-
VCP, including The DIRECTV Group, Inc. and Liberty Media
Corporation, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement of the Action.

The Court also scheduled a hearing on Nov. 25, 2009 for final
approval of the settlement, at which time the Court will hear any
objections to the settlement.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

            Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
            Michael J. Barry, Esq.
            Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
            GRANT & EISENHOFFER P.A.
            1201 North Market Street
            Wilmington, Delaware 19801
            Phone: (302) 622-7000

                - and -

            Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
            Samuel Lieberman, Esq.
            BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
            1285 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, New York 10019
            Phone: (212) 554-1400

The defendants are represented by:

            Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq.
            CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ LLP
            The Nemours Building
            1007 North Orange Street
            P.O. Box 2207
            Wilmington, Delaware 19899

            Michael B. Tumas, Esq.
            POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
            1313 North Market Street
            Wilmington, Delaware 19801
            Phone: (302) 984-6000

                - and -

            Raymond G. DiCamillo, Esq.
            RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,P.A.
            One Rodney Square
            Wilmington, Delaware 19801
            Phone: (302) 651-7700


GREAT ATLANTIC: To Seek Decertification in Workers Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., intends to move to
decertify the class once certain discovery has been completed in
a suit filed against the company on behalf of former employees
of the supermarkets it operates.

On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Company, Inc., dba A&P, The Food Emporium, and
Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the
New York Labor Law.  Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto LaMarca,
Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class
that the company failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly
employees who were either required or permitted to work more than
40 hours per week.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class as follows:

All full-time hourly employees of Defendants who were employed in
Defendants' supermarket stores located in the State of New York,
for any of the period from June 24, 1998 through the date of the
commencement of the action, whom Defendants required or permitted
to perform work in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid
overtime wages.

In December 2008, the Court approved the Form of Notice, which
included an "opt-out" provision and in January 2009, the
Plaintiffs mailed the Notice to potential class members and the
opt-out deadline expired in March 2009.

The parties have commenced discovery.

The company intends to move to decertify the class once certain
discovery has been completed.

No further updates were reported on the company's Oct. 20, 2009,
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 12, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         Rachel Geman, Esq.
         LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500
         E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com

              - and -

         Adam T. Klein, Esq.
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., still faces a consolidated class-action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes).

Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
were consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.

In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing
tubes(copper plumbing tubes).  These suits are seeking monetary
and other relief.

The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect-
Purchaser ACR Tube Action.  The company and Mueller Europe have
been served, but have not yet been required to respond to the
claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 21, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2009.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plumbing Tubes Suit Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion for final approval of the settlement in a
class-action against Mueller Industries, Inc. is scheduled for
February 2010, according to the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 26, 2009.

Four Copper Tube Actions were filed in October 2004 in state
court in California and were consolidated to become the Indirect-
Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.  The Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing
Tube Action is a purported class action brought on behalf of
indirect purchasers of copper plumbing tubes in California and
alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
copper plumbing tubes.  The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding
Company, Deno Holding Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are
named in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.  Deno
Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in the
Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The claims against WTC Holding Company and Deno Holding Company
have been dismissed without prejudice in the Indirect-Purchaser
Plumbing Tube Action.  Mueller Europe has not yet been required
to respond in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.  The
company's demurrer to the complaint has been filed in the
Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

In October 2009, the court overseeing the Indirect-Purchaser
Plumbing Tube Action has granted the parties' motion for
preliminary approval of a class-action settlement.  A hearing on
the motion for final approval of the class-action settlement is
scheduled for February 2010.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit against Mueller Industries, Inc.,
with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes and copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes) remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect-
Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is a
purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers
of copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and
alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
both copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes.  It seeks
monetary and other relief.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Co., Deno Holding
Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants in the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, and Deno
Holding Company have been served, but have not yet been required
to respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.  

Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 21, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2009.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act
lawsuit against Northrop Grumman Corp. remains pending, according
to the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
consolidated two separately filed ERISA lawsuits, which the
plaintiffs seek to have certified as class actions, into the In
Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and the plaintiffs appealed the Court's
decision on class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Order denying
class certification, remanded the issue to the District Court for
further consideration, and ordered that the case be reassigned to
a different judge.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded "Skinner" Lawsuit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded putative class action commenced against the Northrop
Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B
and their corresponding administrative committees remains
pending, according to Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Oct. 21, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA
and breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to
the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates
to the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available
during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and
in 2008 the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
all remaining defendants on all claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 2009, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings,
finding that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan
description related to the employer funded component of the
pension benefit.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


NUTRACEA: Wants Amended Consolidated Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
NutraCea has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona to dismiss an amended consolidated class action
complaint, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Feb. 27, 2009, a shareholder securities class action was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona Case No. CV 09-00406-PHX-FJM.  The class
action is purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who purchased common stock of NutraCea between Aug.
14, 2007 and Feb. 23, 2009.

The complaint alleges that the company filed material
misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and
Securities Exchange Commission filings misstating the company's
financial condition during the period in question.  The
plaintiffs assert two causes of action under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5).

On April 27, 2009, a second shareholder securities class action
was filed against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Case No. CV 09-00880-SRB.   The class action
is purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased common stock of NutraCea between April 2,
2007 and Feb. 23, 2009.

The second complaint alleges that the company filed material
misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and
Securities and Exchange Commission filings misstating the
Company's financial condition during the period in question.  The
plaintiffs assert four causes of action under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5) and under the Arizona Revised Statutes.

On May 29, 2009, the court presiding over the first filed case
consolidated these two actions into one action under the case
name Burritt v. NutraCea, et al., Case No. CV 09-00406-PHX-FJM
and appointed Harvey Pensack, represented by The Rosen Law Firm
P.A., as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 1, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint, alleging that, among other things, defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 44-1991(A)(3), 44-2003(A), and 44-1999(B) of the
Arizona Revised Statutes.

The complaint generally alleges that NutraCea and the individual
defendants made false and misleading statements in NutraCea's
financial statements and seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief against the defendants.

Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on Aug. 3, 2009.

On Aug. 14, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the consolidated class action complaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to amend
and denied defendants' motion to dismiss as moot in light of the
amended complaint.

Motions to dismiss the amended complaint were filed on Oct. 7,
2009.

NutraCea -- http://www.NutraCea.com/-- is a world leader in  
production and utilization of stabilized rice bran.  NutraCea
holds many patents for stabilized rice bran production technology
and proprietary products derived from SRB.  NutraCea's
proprietary technology enables the creation of food and nutrition
products to be unlocked from rice bran, normally a waste by-
product of standard rice processing.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Dispositive Motions Due Today
-------------------------------------------------
PlainsCapital Corp. has until today to file dispositive motions
as a defendant in the removed California individual suits,
according to the company's OCt. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 20, 2009.

After the close of business on December 31, 2008, First Southwest
Holdings, Inc., a diversified, private investment banking
corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas merged into FSWH
Acquisition LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. Following
the merger, FSWH Acquisition LLC changed its name to "First
Southwest Holdings, LLC". The principal subsidiaries of First
Southwest are First Southwest Company ("FSC"),

PlainsCapital owns 100% of the outstanding stock of PlainsCapital
Bank (PCB), who has a 100% interest in First Southwest Holdings,
LLC (FSH). One of the principal subsidiaries of FSH is First
Southwest Company (FSC).

In November 2006, FSC received subpoenas from the SEC and the
U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an investigation of
possible antitrust and securities law violations, including bid-
rigging, in the procurement of guaranteed investment contracts
and other investment products for the reinvestment of bond
proceeds by municipalities.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-
wide practices, FSC was named as a co-defendant in a series of
civil lawsuits filed during 2008 in several different federal
courts by various state and local governmental entities suing on
behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situated
governmental entities.

A similar set of lawsuits were filed in California state courts
by various local governmental entities suing only on behalf of
themselves and not on behalf of a putative class.  The California
state court suits were removed to federal court, and all of the
cases have been transferred to federal court in New York.

On April 29, 2009, the federal court judge dismissed all claims
asserted against FSC and nearly all other defendants from the
consolidated putative class action case and granted the lead
class plaintiffs until June 18, 2009 to file an amended complaint
citing specific instances of alleged anti-competitive behavior by
specific individuals at specific defendants.

On June 18, 2009, the lead class plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended class action complaint.  This amended
complaint did not name FSC as a defendant and did not make any
specific allegations of misconduct against FSC or any of its
employees.  As a result, FSC is no longer a party to the putative
class action case.

However, FSC is identified in the consolidated amended class
action complaint as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.  With respect to putative class actions filed in
federal court by California plaintiffs that opted not to join in
the consolidated class action case, the federal court judge
granted those plaintiffs until September 15, 2009 to file an
amended complaint.
These California putative class plaintiffs also did not name FSC
as a defendant and did not make any specific allegations of
misconduct against FSC or any of its employees.  As a result, FSC
is no longer a party to these California putative class actions.  
However, FSC is identified in this complaint as an alleged co-
conspirator with the named defendants.

With respect to the removed California suits that do not seek
class action status, the federal court judge gave the plaintiffs
until September 15, 2009 to file an amended complaint.  These
California plaintiffs filed amended complaints continuing to
identify FSC as a named defendant.

The few allegations against FSC are very limited in scope.  Under
the current scheduling order, the defendants in the removed
California individual suits have until October 30, 2009 to file
dispositive motions.

PlainsCapital Corp. is a financial holding company registered
under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended by the
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, headquartered in Dallas, Texas,
that provides, through its subsidiaries, a broad array of
products and services.  In addition to traditional banking
services, PlainsCapital provides residential mortgage lending,
investment banking, public finance advisory, wealth and
investment management, treasury management, capital equipment
leasing, fixed income sales and trading, asset management and
correspondent clearing services.


WELLS FARGO: Technical Support Worker Class is Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly M. Dermody, Esq., of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, announced that current and former Wells Fargo technical
support workers throughout the United States are a significant
step closer to recovering pay for overtime hours they worked.  

This week, the Honorable Claudia Wilken of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of the case as a collective
action.  The complaint charges that the workers should have been
paid overtime for hours worked over 40 per week.   

"Wells Fargo became one of the nation's largest banks in large
part because of the hard work and dedication of its employees,
including those that keep its computer systems operating
properly." stated Aaron Cooper, one of the plaintiffs.  "I am
glad that my fellow IT support workers can join the case and have
the opportunity to get paid for the many hours of overtime they
have worked for many years."

"In granting certification, the Court conditionally recognizes
that these employees have similar job duties, such that
addressing their claims in a single action - rather than many
individual lawsuits - is appropriate," noted Ms. Dermody.  "We
look forward to proving at trial that Wells Fargo misclassified
certain IT workers under federal and state wage and hour laws as
exempt from overtime pay."

The next step in the litigation the providing of notice to class
members.  A one-page form, called a "consent to join form," will
be sent by U.S. mail and email to the several thousand employees,
within nine days of today.  Each employee should protect his or
her rights by returning the form to the plaintiffs' counsel.  
Until an individual sends in that form, his or her statute of
limitations (the time period for which overtime pay can be
recovered) continues to run.  

The Court-approved notice to the class can be found at:

     http://www.lieffcabraser.com/employment/wells-fargo.htm

and the single-page consent to join form employees must complete
and mail to protect their rights can be found at:

     http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/20091027-wf-notice.pdf

"Wells Fargo employees who wish to protect their rights should
promptly send in the form.  For each day that they delay
submitting the form, they risk losing a day of overtime pay,"
explained Ms. Dermody.  "The employees must file those forms
within 75 days to be able to recover under federal law, or they
risk losing their opportunity to assert their federal rights in
this lawsuit forever."

                        About the Wells Fargo
                Overtime Pay IT Worker Class Action

Current and former employees of Wells Fargo & Company, who worked
as technical support workers, with the primary duties of
installing, maintaining, and/or supporting Wells Fargo's software
and/or hardware, filed the complaint in 2008.  The suit, entitled
Lewis v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 08-2670 CW, includes overtime
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as the
laws of California and Minnesota.

The Court's October 26, 2009, order certified a class that
includes all Network Engineers, Operating Systems Engineers,
Information Security Analysts, Technical Service Specialists,
Systems Support Analysts, Web Engineers, Web Support Engineers,
Web Systems Engineers, Operating Systems Analysts (level 2),
Systems QA Analysts (levels 2 or 3), Computer Operations Analysts
(levels 3 or 4), Database Administrators (levels 2 or 3), and
Applications Systems Engineers (level 3) who worked for Wells
Fargo as exempt employees at any time during the past three years
anywhere in the United States.  

An estimated 3,000 employees are eligible to participate.  Wells
Fargo reclassified some of these employees to hourly status and
paid many of them what plaintiffs allege are incomplete backpay
awards.  These reclassified workers are eligible to participate
even if they received such payments.  

Representing plaintiffs and class members are law firms Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Haber Polk LLP.  


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Naggar Realty Fined $18,050 for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
penalized Naggar Realty LLC US$18,050 for asbestos violations
observed during an inspection of property it owns at 563
Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, Mass., according to a MassDEP
press release dated Oct. 23, 2009.

During the initial inspection on Nov. 21, 2007, MassDEP found
scattered pieces of asbestos-containing floor tiles on the first
floor of the commercial property where renovations were taking
place. Asbestos-containing debris was also improperly disposed of
in an open roll-off container outside.

The actions of failing to notify MassDEP prior to asbestos
abatement, and the improper removal and disposal of the asbestos-
containing material represent violations subject to penalties.

Richard Chalpin, director of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office
in Wilmington, Mass., said, "Asbestos materials can be found in
many places, particularly older buildings, and it presents a
hazard to public health if it is improperly removed.

"In order to protect the public, MassDEP works to make sure
notification is done prior to beginning work so that asbestos
fibers are not released into the air where they pose a hazard to
those nearby."

Naggar Realty appealed MassDEPs original US$18,050 penalty on
Feb. 19, 2009. On Sept. 14, 2009, MassDEP Commissioner Laurie
Burt issued a final decision in which Naggar agreed in a consent
order with MassDEP to resolve the case and pay US$7,500 of the
penalty. The remaining US$10,550 will be suspended for one year
pending compliance with applicable regulations.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Cites $205M Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos liability was US$205 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$256
million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Current asbestos liability was US$12 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$11 million during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 22, 2009.

The Company's asbestos-related liability was US$208 million
during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$258
million during the six months ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, July 31, 2009)

The Company faces lawsuits in which current and former employees
and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. The Company also
has received claims for asbestos exposure that have not been
litigated. The claims and suits allege occupational illness
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at Sept.
30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Union Pacific Corporation's subsidiary (Union Pacific Railroad
Company) transports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and
other freight over a system of more than 32,000 route miles in 23
states in the western two-thirds of the United States. The
Company is based in Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Has $757M Non-Current Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$757 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared
with US$824 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
press release, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Oct. 22, 2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$618 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$658
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Dow Chemical Company delivers products and services,
connecting chemistry and innovation with the principles of
sustainability to help provide everything from fresh water, food
and pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care
products. The Company is based in Midland, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Involved in Insurance Coverage Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. (TPC), continues to be party to asbestos-related
insurance lawsuits filed in various courts.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies,
Inc. (SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other
cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into
a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by
inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The
plaintiffs seek to reopen settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.

Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of
asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory
and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.

Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against
TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively
referred to as the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the
bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville
Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the
prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii
Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases
filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining
certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC
based on similar allegations. Additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to US$412 million by TPC. In May 2004, the parties
reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and
similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement
requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC.  

Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final
order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these
claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC,
are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (1986
Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the
pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common
Law Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order).

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc,
requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which
were denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for
Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the
Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
Company, reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision,
finding that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the
Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law
Claims against TPC. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues. Accordingly, the
settlements are not yet final.

On Oct. 21, 2009, certain of the objectors to the settlement of
the Common Law Claims filed a request with the Second Circuit
seeking dismissal of their appeal of the order approving the
settlement. The Second Circuit has not acted on this request and
oral argument on the issues remaining to be considered on remand
is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2009.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court
rulings or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action
cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All such
cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.

SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio
state court. Those actions have all been dismissed following
favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides commercial auto, property,
workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial
liability coverage to companies in North America and the United
Kingdom. The Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds as
well as professional and management liability coverage for
commercial operations. The Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.915B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves
were US$2.915 billion at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009, compared with US$3.227 billion at and for the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 22,
2009.

The Company's net asbestos reserves amounted to US$2.791 billion
at and for the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with
US$3.596 billion at and for the three months ended June 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid were US$184 million in the
first nine months of 2009, compared with US$577 million in the
same period of 2008 (asbestos payments in 2008 included the
Company's one-time net payment of US$365 million associated with
the settlement of the ACandS, Inc. matter).

In December 2008, the Company completed the sale of Unionamerica,
which comprised its United Kingdom-based runoff insurance and
reinsurance businesses. Included in the claims and claim
adjustment expense reserves transferred to the purchaser were
gross and net asbestos reserves of $330 million and $232 million,
respectively.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides commercial auto, property,
workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial
liability coverage to companies in North America and the United
Kingdom. The Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds as
well as professional and management liability coverage for
commercial operations. The Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Corp., Units Still Face Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries continue to be
defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its
facilities.

Certain of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 22, 2009.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time
of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec
Industries Inc.

At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a
significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged
asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to
the Company's ownership.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that was
used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace components, systems and
services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets.
The Company also supplies systems and products to the global
defense and space markets. The Company is based in Charlotte,
N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ENSCO Still Has Exposure Cases in Miss. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated and certain current and former
subsidiaries continue to be defendants in three multi-party
asbestos suits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County
(Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial
District), Miss.

Filed during 2004, the lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of
monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal
injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual
plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in
Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

The Mississippi state court cases are under an informal stay of
discovery issued by a Special Master, while discovery is
conducted for a select and limited group of plaintiffs, some of
whom have cases pending against the Company.

Currently, two discovery groups have been designated by the
Special Master, with a third discovery group due to be formed in
connection with a status conference called by the Special Master
for Oct. 26, 2009. To date, written discovery and plaintiff
depositions have taken place in eight cases involving the
Company.

However, no further activity is expected in these cases until
they are selected for trial. Currently, none of the cases pending
against the Company in Mississippi have been set for trial.

In addition to the pending state court cases, there are also
three cases pending in Mississippi federal court. These three
cases were recently consolidated with 441 other lawsuits and
assigned to the Multi-District Litigation 875, which is currently
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

However, the Houston law firm representing these plaintiffs has
filed a Motion to Remand, seeking to bring the cases back to
Mississippi state court.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
eight other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in various other jurisdictions.

ENSCO International Incorporated is an offshore drilling
contractor that owns 46 offshore rigs, including 43 jack-ups, one
barge rig, and two ultra-deepwater semisubmersible (capable of
drilling in up to 8,500 ft. of water). The Company drills mostly
in the Asia/Pacific region (which includes Asia, the Middle East,
Australia, and New Zealand). The Company is based in Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $1.559B Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.559 billion as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared
with US$1.538 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
press release dated Oct. 23, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.557 billion as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
July 31, 2009)

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.045 billion as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared
with US$1.029 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities
were US$1.036 billion as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, July 31, 2009)

Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer serving customers
with aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials. The Company is based in
Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CertainTeed Claims Decrease to 66T at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outstanding asbestos claims against Compagnie de Saint-Gobain's
subsidiary, CertainTeed Corporation, dropped to 66,000 at Sept.
30, 2009 from 68,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
press release dated Oct. 22, 2009.

Some 3,000 claims were filed against CertainTeed in the first
nine months of 2009, compared with 4,000 claims in the year-
earlier period.

Around 5,000 claims were settled or transferred to inactive
dockets in the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain develops, manufactures, and distributes
products for construction, transportation, industrial, food
storage, and solar energy usage. The Company operates in five
sectors: Construction Products, Building Distribution, Flat
Glass, High-Performance Materials, and Packaging. The Company is
based in Courbevoie, France.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gordon-Smith Workers Indicted for CAA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice said a federal grand jury in the
Western District of New York returned an indictment charging
David Vega and Francis Rowe for violating the Clean Air Act while
they were project managers for Gordon-Smith Contracting, Inc., an
asbestos removal company owned by Keith Gordon-Smith, according
to a DOJ press release dated Oct. 22, 2009.

The indictment supersedes an earlier indictment returned by the
grand jury in June 2009, against Mr. Gordon-Smith, charging him
with numerous violations of the CAA, submitting false statements
and obstruction of justice. The superseding indictment now also
charges Mr. Gordon-Smith's company with the same criminal
violations.

In addition, the superseding indictment charges Mr. Rowe with
submitting a false statement in an effort to obtain a court-
appointed attorney.

The charges stem from allegations that Mr. Gordon-Smith, Gordon-
Smith Contracting, Mr. Vega and Mr. Rowe directed and caused
workers to illegally remove and dispose of asbestos during the
demolition of the Genesee Hospital complex in Rochester, N.Y.

The CAA requires contractors who remove asbestos from public
buildings to follow federally-established work practice standards
to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos.

The required standards include providing notice to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency before commencing asbestos
removal, adequately wetting the asbestos during the removal and
before disposal, and properly disposing of the asbestos at an
EPA-approved disposal site.

The 18-count indictment alleges that at different time periods
between June 2007 and April 2009, Mr. Gordon-Smith, Mr. Vega and
Mr. Rowe had Gordon-Smith Contracting employees remove asbestos
from the Genesee Hospital complex without ensuring that the
asbestos was kept adequately wet or properly disposed.

The indictment also alleges that Mr. Gordon-Smith caused his
company's employees to perform illegal asbestos removal at other
sites, including schools, and that Mr. Gordon-Smith took several
steps to hide the illegal asbestos removal from federal agencies.

These included failing to provide prior notification to EPA
before the asbestos removal projects were performed at the
schools and hospital, giving false statements to an inspector
from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
providing a false notification to the EPA.

If convicted, Mr. Gordon-Smith, Mr. Vega and Mr. Rowe could each
be punished by up to five years in prison as well as a criminal
fine of up to US$250,000 for each count. Gordon-Smith Contracting
could be subject to a criminal fine of the greater of US$500,000
or twice the gain obtained by the company or suffered by any
victims as a result of the crimes, for each count.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Western District of New York and the DOJ's Environmental
Crimes Section.

The case was investigated by the EPA Criminal Investigation
Division and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector
General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auburn Landlord Charged for Cleanup Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Department of Labor cited landlord George
Kertstetter, of Auburn, N.Y., for five violations over the
improper removal of asbestos from a building he owns,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

According to the DOL, Mr. Kerstetter, of Kerstetter LLC, could be
fined up to US$5,000 each on three of the civil violations. He
may also face a maximum penalty of US$4,000 on the remaining two
violations.

According to DOL spokeswoman Karen Williamson, "Some sort of
penalty is likely."

The charges stem from an incident that occurred in September
2009. Mr. Kerstetter was using a power saw to dismantle an
asbestos-laden boiler in the basement of his apartment/commercial
building.

Firefighters were called to the scene after reports of
potentially toxic fumes from the gasoline-powered saw spread
through the three-story building and set off the carbon monoxide
detector.

Firefighters evacuated the entire building, and then found a
large amount of asbestos dust on the basement floor and on scrap
metal near the boiler.

Ms. Williamson said, "Our main concern is making sure that's
cleaned up so there are no additional hazards to workers or to
the public."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $120,000 Estimated as Reitz Union Cleanup Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost to remove asbestos from the hotel of the J. Reitz
Union in Gainesville, Fla., would be about US$120,000, the
Independent Florida Alligator reports.

The asbestos lies undisturbed in the building's walls.

On Oct. 20, 2009, Executive Director Eddie Daniels gave a
presentation at the Student Senate meeting describing maintenance
repairs of the Reitz Union, which would cost about US$42.5
million over the next 15 years.

One necessary repair includes removing asbestos above the
ceilings, in the hot water piping and in the duct work of the
Reitz Union Hotel.

Unite Party Sen. Kara Olesky said she did not feel comfortable
knowing that asbestos was present in the hotel's walls and feared
for the health of hotel guests.

Bill Burton, an environmental health and safety specialist at UF,
said asbestos only becomes dangerous if it is disturbed during
construction or renovations of buildings. Then, the fibers are
released into the air and could cause health problems for the
people who breathe them in.

Orange and Blue Party Sen. Jon Ossip said the asbestos removal
was not high on his priority list because he would rather see the
union become more energy efficient. He said the US$150,000
senators voted to give to the administration at the meeting
should have been used for Reitz Union repairs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. School Claims Liability for Asbestos Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carle Place School District officials admitted they were to blame
for an asbestos-related incident at Rushmore Elementary School in
Carle Place, N.Y., Mesothelioma.com reports.

Officials said they made an error in judgment when they failed to
hire a specially licensed contractor to run conduits through an
asbestos-insulated space beneath the school.

The school sent a letter home to parents, outlining the incident.
The letter also aimed to calm fearful parents by stating that air
quality testing had been conducted, and no detectable levels of
asbestos had been revealed after the work was done on the
portions of the space containing asbestos.

The letter, which was sent by Superintendent W. Michael Mahoney,
said, "If we had 20-20 hindsight, we'd probably hire somebody
licensed to work in a protected area."

State law requires special licenses for contractors working with
asbestos, because asbestos exposure is conclusively linked to the
development of mesothelioma.

Karen Williamson, a spokeswoman for the New York State Department
of Labor, told reporters that an inspector had visited Rushmore
on Oct. 16, 2009, after a complaint was lodged.

Ms. Williamson says that a report will be completed later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard at Metropolitan Police Building in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 22, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said
officials found asbestos in floor tiles and officers' lockers at
a building at 1700 Rhode Island Ave. used for youth
interrogations, The Washington Times reports.

Officials with the Department of Real Estate Services detected
what they suspected was asbestos during a walk-through of the
building on Oct. 6, 2009, according to a timeline released by
police spokeswoman Traci Hughes.

The timeline read, "They had their environmental contractor run
air-quality tests the next day and when they received
notification that test results indicated the presence of
[asbestos-containing materials] they sealed the locker room, the
boiler room, and 2 storage rooms. This occurred on Oct. 16,
2009."

However, documents and e-mails obtained by The Washington Times
indicate that officials were notified about the problem when
officers arrived for work on June 25, 2009 and saw signs posted
for asbestos abatement work by Multi-Task Environmental
Consultants, LLC.

On June 28, 2009, an e-mail shows that Facilities Management
Division director Jane D. Morrissey assured the union's safety
officer that asbestos testing was done in the command staff
offices and that otherwise the project was a matter of carpet
replacement.

Though signs were posted in late June 2009, union officials
contend their members were not made aware of any specific
precautions or potential hazards until recently.

Kristopher Baumann, president of the union that represents D.C.
police officers, said the building has been in continuous use
without any health or safety precautions conveyed to more than 30
detectives, sergeants and officers of the Youth Investigations
Division, in addition to an undetermined number of youths who
have passed through the division.

On Oct. 19, 2009, Capt. Kimberly Chisley-Missouri informed
members in an e-mail stating that almost two weeks earlier, on
Oct. 7, 2009, air tests contained "possible asbestos containing
materials." Only then did police officials seal off the locker
rooms.


On Oct. 20, 2009, members were informed that hazardous materials
officials would begin emptying and testing the contents of the
lockers.

By Oct. 21, 2009, Capt. Chisley-Missouri told members in an e-
mail that five of the six lockers tested may have asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Clemmer Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California,
affirmed the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which ruled in favor of Charlton Clemmer in an asbestos lawsuit
filed against Thorpe Insulation Company.

The case is styled Charlton Clemmer et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents v. Thorpe Insulation Company, Defendant and
Appellant.

Judges Maria P. Rivera, Ignazio J. Ruvolo, and Timothy A. Reardon
entered judgment in Case No. A114714 on Sept. 17, 2009.

Thorpe appealed from a judgment against it for damages. It
contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the
judgment because there was no evidence that it supplied asbestos
products that were used on any ships on which Mr. Clemmer served.

Mr. Clemmer began his naval career in 1952 in San Diego, Calif.
The Navy assigned him to the machinist mate school where he was
trained to run an engineering plant aboard a ship.

Mr. Clemmer received instruction regarding boilers, turbines,
evaporators, pumps, injectors, economizers, blowers, steam
generators, and condensers. He subsequently served on several
ships but two docked in California, the USS Wilkinson and the USS
Yorktown.

Mr. Clemmer began his service on the Wilkinson in about mid-1953
as a fireman apprentice. He was aboard the Wilkinson when it
underwent a major overhaul at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard
(LBNS).

During his service on the Wilkinson at the LBNS, Mr. Clemmer was
a first class machinist mate in charge of the engine room. His
duties included removal or installation of valves, gaskets, and
pumps; overhaul and repairs to pumps; and rebuilding and
repacking of valves. The packing material he used on the
Wilkinson looked like asbestos braid around a compressed square.

Mr. Clemmer testified he left the Wilkinson in March 1960.

Mr. Clemmer served as the chief machinist mate in charge of the
hydraulic division on the Yorktown in about 1963 and was aboard
the ship for about one year. During that period, the Yorktown
docked at LBNS for repairs. Mr. Clemmer visited the boiler room
and engine room during the repairs, and observed work being done
on boilers and a lot of hard pipe insulation that was disturbed.

Charles Ay, a retired asbestos insulator, testified that he
worked on the Wilkinson beginning on April 1, 1960, when it was
at the LBNS undergoing an overhaul. During his employment at the
LBNS, Thorpe supplied insulation material including asbestos
cloth on a regular and continuing basis.

Mr. Ay further testified that Mr. Clemmer's work involving
valves, pumps, and application of thermal insulation would have
resulted in significant exposure to asbestos. Mr. Ay stated that
Thorpe and Metalclad were the two main suppliers of thermal
insulation products at the LBNS.

At the time of his deposition on Oct. 27, 2004, Mr. Clemmer had
been diagnosed with mesothelioma and had been told that he had a
maximum of six months to live.

Mr. Clemmer's videotaped deposition was played for the jury
because he, who lives in North Carolina, was too ill to travel.

Philip Stephen Ward, Esq., in San Francisco, Gary Lynn Brayton,
Esq., in Novato, Calif., represented Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Catherine Lynn Eranthe, Esq., Stuart A. McIntosh, Esq., of
Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder in Emeryville, Calif., Jeffrey
Scott Wood, Esq., of Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. in Oakland,
Calif., represented Thorpe Insulation Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in O'Neil Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California,
reversed the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
which favored Crane Co. and Warren Pumps LLC and granted their
motion for nonsuit in an asbestos lawsuit filed on behalf of
Patrick O'Neil.

The case is styled Barbara J. O'Neil et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Crane Co., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Orville A. Armstrong, Richard M. Mosk, and Sandy R.
Kriegler entered judgment in Case No. B208225 on Sept. 18, 2009.

Mr. O'Neil died of mesothelioma in 2005 at the age of 62. His
widow, Barbara O'Neil (individually and as successor in interest
to Patrick O'Neil), and his children, Michael O'Neil and Regan
Schneider, sued Crane and Warren Pumps for negligence, negligent
failure to warn, strict liability for failure to warn, and strict
liability for design defect on the consumer expectation theory.

After 15 days of jury trial, the court granted respondents'
motion for nonsuit and judgment was entered in their favor.

The jury heard evidence connecting Mr. O'Neil's disease to his
exposure to asbestos during the period between June 1965 and
August 1966, when he served as an officer on the USS Oriskany, an
Essex class aircraft carrier built between 1944 or 1945 and
1950.

The Revolutionary War Battle of Oriskany took place in August
1777, in New York's Mohawk Valley. On the Oriskany, Mr. O'Neil
was first a Main Engine Junior Officer, then a Boiler Division
Officer. In both assignments, he stood watch in the machinery
spaces, that is, in the boiler rooms and engine rooms and machine
room, where he was responsible for supervising repairs and
maintenance of equipment in those rooms.

Mr. O'Neil also supervised repairs when the Oriskany was in dry
dock for a period of about three months, after a fire.

The main power source on the Oriskany was steam, produced by
eight boilers in four rooms. The steam system operated at very
high temperatures, and all valves, flanges, and fittings were
necessarily covered in insulation.

When the Oriskany was built, the primary type of insulation for
that purpose was made of 18 percent magnesium and 15 percent
asbestos. Asbestos was also used in the packing, which was found
in pumps and valves.

Waters Kraus & Paul, Paul C. Cook, Esq., Michael B. Gurien, Esq.,
represented the O'Neil family.

K & L Gates, Raymond L. Gill, Esq., Robert E. Feyder, Esq.,
Geoffrey M. Davis, Esq., represented Crane Co.

Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, James P. Cunningham, Esq., Laurie
J. Hepler, Esq., Gonzalo C. Martinez, Esq., represented Warren
Pumps LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chem. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company and its operations, from time to time,
are parties to or targets of lawsuits, claims, investigations and
proceedings, including asbestos, product liability, personal
injury, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,
environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment
matters.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 23, 2009.

Eastman Chemical Company produces chemicals, fibers, and
plastics. Company products go into items like food and medical
packaging, films, and toothbrushes. The Company is based in
Kingsport, Tenn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Records $870M NARCO Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s insurance receivable for its
former North American Refractories Company (NARCO) subsidiary was
US$870 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$877 million
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The insurance receivable corresponds to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable for NARCO was US$873
million as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 31,
2009)

From 1979 to 1986, the Company owned NARCO, which produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than two percent of NARCO's products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all
other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in
effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.

The Company also agreed to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent
company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO
acceptable to the Company (which amount was paid in December 2005
following the filing of NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent company US$40 million,
and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to the Company,
upon the effective date of the plan of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008. In August 2008, insurers
filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal is fully briefed, oral argument took place on May 21,
2009, and the matter has been submitted for decision.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of Sept. 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008 of
US$1.1 billion.

Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer serving customers
with aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials. The Company is based in
Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $340M NARCO Coverage at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
About US$340 million of coverage under certain asbestos insurance
policies is included in Honeywell International Inc.'s insurance
receivable at Sept. 30, 2009, related to former unit North
American Refractories Company (NARCO).

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance
Company filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance
carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York,
disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under
high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other
insurance carriers.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical
choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of
allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered
policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling
was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second
quarter of 2009.

Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Appellate Division,
the highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.

A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been
dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been
preserved in the New York action.

Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer serving customers
with aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials. The Company is based in
Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bendix Decrease to 48,622 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against Honeywell International Inc.'s
Bendix friction materials business dropped to 48,622 during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, from 51,951 during the nine
months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Bendix faced 51,110 asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2009.
(Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and
potential claimants consist of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through Sept. 30, 2009, the Company has resolved about
122,000 Bendix-related asbestos claims. The Company had 129
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 15 trials resulting in
adverse verdicts. Two of these adverse verdicts were reversed on
appeal, three verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three
claims were settled and the remaining has been or will be
appealed.

Bendix claims filed amounted to 2,123 during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 4,003 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008. Bendix claims resolved were 5,452 during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 3,710 claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

About 45 percent of about 49,000 pending claims at Sept. 30, 2009
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment. The 49,000 pending claims also include claims filed
in jurisdictions like Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that
historically allowed for consolidated filings.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$600 million at Sept. 30, 2009 and
US$578 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$179 million at Sept.
30, 2009 and US$156 million at Dec. 31, 2008 are reflected as
receivables in its consolidated balance sheet.

Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer serving customers
with aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials. The Company is based in
Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Sept. 30 Liabilities at $1.7 Bil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos liabilities for Honeywell International Inc.
subsidiaries were US$1.730 billion during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2009, of which US$1.130 billion was for North American
Refractories Company (NARCO) and US$600 million was for the
Bendix friction materials business.

The Company's asbestos liabilities for Bendix and NARCO were
US$1.728 billion as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
July 31, 2009)

Insurance recoveries for the Company's subsidiaries were US$1.049
billion as of Sept. 30, 2009, of which US$870 million was for
NARCO and US$178 million was for Bendix.

Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer serving customers
with aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials. The Company is based in
Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $38M Litigation Charges at 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, were US$38 million during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$43 million during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 23, 2009.

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, were US$37 million during the three months ended June
30, 2009, compared with US$34 million during the three months
ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, were US$111 million during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2009, compared with US$105 million during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant
in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did
not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation
products or other construction materials that have been
identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in
the majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into
two general categories: refractory products and friction
products.

Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer serving customers
with aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials. The Company is based in
Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Has 1,743 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,743 unresolved
asbestos cases during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009, compared with 1,860 cases during the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company faced 1,750 asbestos claims during the three and six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 1,800 claims during the
three and six months ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
July 31, 2008)

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company
recorded 89 claims filed and 96 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved. During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008,
the Company recorded 143 claims filed and 83 claims settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded
236 claims filed and 326 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the
Company recorded 415 claims filed and 336 claims settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.

The Company is party to personal injury claims by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest
exposure for Company employees was due to work conducted in and
around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out
between 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos matters were US$241 million during the three
and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$256
million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Of the Sept. 30, 2009 obligation, US$199 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$42 million was related to asserted
claims. At Sept. 30, 2009, US$17 million was included in current
liabilities.

It is reasonably possible that future costs to settle asbestos
claims may range from about US$217 million to US$262 million.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation is in the freight rail
transportation business. Its operating subsidiary, BNSF Railway,
operates one of the largest North American rail networks with
about 32,000 route miles in 28 states and two Canadian provinces.
The Company is based in Fort Worth, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Martin Continues to Face Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies in recent years, Lockheed
Martin Corporation continues to be a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into its premises and certain historical products.

The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any manufactured products, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 23, 2009.

The Company has been successful in having a substantial number of
these claims dismissed without payment. The remaining resolved
claims have settled for amounts that are not material
individually or in the aggregate.

A substantial majority of the asbestos-related claims have been
covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity.

Lockheed Martin Corporation researches, designs and develops,
manufactures, integrates, and sustains advanced technology
systems and products. The Company provides management,
engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and information
services. The Company is based in Bethesda, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $49M for Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
reserved US$49 million for asbestos bodily injury claims at Sept.
30, 2009, compared with US$52 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Generation reserved US$50 million at June 30, 2009 for asbestos
bodily injury claims. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

As of Sept. 30, 2009, about US$11 million of the US$49 million
reserve is related to 135 open claims presented to Generation,
while the remaining US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated
future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2050.

Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company engaged,
through its subsidiaries, in the generation and energy delivery
businesses. The Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Has No AMSF Accrual at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company says that, as of Sept. 30, 2009, it had not
accrued any amounts related to a matter (involving asbestos
liabilities) concerning the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting
Fund (AMSF).

As of June 30, 2009, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to a matter (involving asbestos liabilities) concerning
the AMSF. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission
initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's
change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction
projects and related disclosures.

In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were
filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named
as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers
and directors.

The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al.
v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the
Company in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now
styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al. The Company settled with the SEC in
the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that it failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct
deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed
its fourth amended consolidated complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court
ordered that the case proceed against the CEO and the Company.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.

AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
requesting permission to appeal the district court's order
denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's
motion and the order denying class certification is currently on
appeal.

The case will remain stayed in the district court pending the
outcome of the appeal.

Halliburton Company provides products and services to the energy
industry. The Company reports its results under two segments,
Completion and Production and Drilling and Evaluation. The
Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Gets $90MM Payments in 3rd-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company received payments of US$90 million for its
asbestos-related insurance settlements in the third quarter of
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 23, 2009.

The Company received payment of US$79 million for its asbestos-
related insurance settlements in July 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, July 31, 2009)

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11
proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and
the Company's other affected subsidiaries that had previously
been named as defendants in asbestos- and silica-related
lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had not recorded any liability
associated with these indemnifications.

Halliburton Company provides products and services to the energy
industry. The Company reports its results under two segments,
Completion and Production and Drilling and Evaluation. The
Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Party Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. continues to face multi-claimant/multi-
defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 23,
2009.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated
into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's
products.

Badger Meter, Inc. makes and markets products incorporating
liquid flow measurement and control technologies, developed both
internally and in conjunction with technology companies. Its
products are used in applications to measure and control the flow
of liquids, primarily water. The Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Board Ruling in State Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New
York, reversed the Jan. 24, 2008 ruling of the Workers'
Compensation Board, which ruled that the State Insurance Fund
(SIF) was liable for the payment of workers' compensation
benefits.

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Adrzej
Mlodozeniec, Claimant v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corporation et
al., Appellants and Zurich American Insurance Company,
Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Anthony V. Cardona, Karen K. Peters, E. Michael Kavanagh,
Leslie E. Stein, and William E. McCarthy entered judgment in the
case on Oct. 22, 2009.

Adrzej Mlodozeniec was employed until September 1995 as an
asbestos handler performing asbestos removal work for Trio
Asbestos Removal Corporation. At the time of his employment, SIF
provided workers' compensation insurance to Trio.

In 1996, after Mr. Mlodozeniec left Trio's employ, Trio replaced
the SIF policy with one written by Zurich American Insurance
Company, and that policy remained in effect until 1999.

Mr. Mlodozeniec's health subsequently deteriorated and, in August
1999, he was diagnosed with an occupational condition. He filed
for workers' compensation benefits and a Workers' Compensation
Law Judge found that Mr. Mlodozeniec's pleural and hyperactive
airway disease was caused by his asbestos related employment and
that he was disabled as of Aug. 24, 1999.

The Workers' Compensation Law Judge concluded that Zurich, Trio's
insurer on that date, was responsible for the payment of this
claim. The Board reversed this decision and found that because
SIF was the insurer when Mr. Mlodozeniec was last employed by
Trio when he was exposed to asbestos, it was liable for the
payment of his workers' compensation claim.

The Supreme Court reversed the Board's ruling.

Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund (Marc H. Silver, Esq.) in
New York, represented appellants.

Cherry, Edson & Kelly, L.L.P. (David W. Faber, Esq.) in Carle
Place, N.Y., represented Zurich American Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Rulings in DiBenedetto Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, issued split
rulings in the consolidated asbestos litigation styled Blaise
DiBenedetto v. Noble Drilling Company, et al.

Judges Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr., Michael E. Kirby, and David S.
Gorbaty entered judgment in Case Nos. 2009-CA-0073, 2009-CA-0464,
2009-CA-1025 on Oct. 21, 2009.

This consolidated case involved three appeals of pre-trial
judgments rendered in a personal injury lawsuit brought by Blaise
DiBenedetto.

Mr. DiBenedetto sued numerous defendants, including previous
employers, claiming that he contracted malignant mesothelioma as
a result of exposure to asbestos while working for Noble Drilling
Company from 1972 to 1974, and for various stevedoring companies
on the New Orleans riverfront from 1974 through 2008.

The Appeals Court's holdings in all three appeals were in Mr.
DiBenedetto's favor. This case was remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court judgments in Appeal
No.2009-CA-0073. The Appeals Court reversed the trial court
judgments in Appeal No.2009-CA-0464 and 2009-CA-1025. The Appeals
Court remanded this case for further proceedings not inconsistent
with this opinion.

Mickey P. Landry, Esq., Frank J. Swarr, Esq., David R. Cannella,
Esq., Philip C. Hoffman, Esq., of Landry & Swarr, L.L.C. in New
Orleans, and Richard I. Nemeroff, Esq., of Delucca & Nemeroff,
L.L.P. in Spring, Tex., represented Mr. DiBenedetto.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in Abrams, Shaw Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the en
banc panel of the Superior Court affirming the trial court's
grant of the motion for summary judgment filed by John Crane,
Inc. in the asbestos cases of Kenneth Abrams and John Shaw.

Judges Debra McCloskey Todd, J. Michael Eakin, Max Baer, Seamus
P. McCaffery, Thomas G. Saylor, and Ronald D. Castille entered
judgment in Case Nos. 17 EAP 2008, 18 EAP 2008 on Oct. 21, 2009.
Judges Saylor and Castille dissented.

In April 1984, Kenneth Abrams was diagnosed with nonmalignant
asbestos-related disease. John Shaw similarly was diagnosed with
nonmalignant asbestos-related disease in January 1985.

Within two years of their respective diagnoses, both Mr. Abrams
and Mr. Shaw filed complaints against various defendants seeking
damages for increased risk and/or fear of cancer. Both lawsuits
were settled in 1993, prior to trial.

In December 2002, both Mr. Abrams and Mr. Shaw were diagnosed
with lung cancer. In February 2003, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Shaw filed
separate lawsuits against various companies, including Crane,
alleging that the cause of their lung cancer was occupational
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by those
companies.

Subsequent to the filing of their complaints, Mr. Abrams and Mr.
Shaw both passed away, and their widows, Eleanor Abrams and
Marilyn Shaw (collectively, "Appellants"), were substituted as
plaintiffs.

On Feb. 11, 2005, Crane filed a motion for summary judgment in
both cases. The trial court agreed, and granted Crane's motion
for summary judgment in both cases.

On June 9, 2006, in a published opinion authored by President
Judge Emeritus McEwen, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court
reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded
for further proceedings. Subsequently, however, Crane petitioned
for and was granted reargument, and the Superior Court's June 9,
2006 opinion was withdrawn.

On Dec. 17, 2007, an en banc panel of the Superior Court, in a 5-
4 decision, affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of Crane.

Appellants petitioned for allowance of appeal, and, on June 10,
2008, this Court granted their petition. The appeal was argued on
Oct. 20, 2008.

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court erred in its
determination that Appellants were precluded from seeking damages
from Crane for lung cancer diagnosed after the two disease rule
was adopted in this Commonwealth.

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Superior Court that
affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in Crane's
favor, and the Supreme Court remanded the matter for further
proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Cites $5M Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated, in the third quarter of 2009, recorded
charges of US$6 million (US$4 million after-tax) to adjust the
asbestos litigation liability for the change in value of the
components of the Amended PCC Plan, according to a Company press
release dated Oct. 26, 2009.

In the second quarter of 2009, the Company recorded charges of
US$5 million (US$3 million after-tax) to adjust the asbestos
litigation liability for the change in value of the components of
the Amended PCC Plan. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) which might
arise from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan).

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan.

On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised
the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on
an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that
resolved issues raised by the Court in denying the confirmation
of the 2003 Plan.

As a result of progress in the parties' continuing negotiations,
the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now represents
the most probable outcome of this matter and the probability that
the 2003 plan will become effective has diminished.

The proposed settlement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the
Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe, N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed series of
cash payments recorded at present value.

The Company will have the option to contribute shares rather than
cash, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not number
of shares. As a result, the estimated asbestos litigation
liability is no longer impacted by movements in the value of
Corning common stock.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include non-PCC asbestos claims
that may be or have been raised against the Company.

Asbestos litigation charge was US$15 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Asbestos litigation credit was
US$312 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Corning Incorporated makes components that enable systems for
consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, life sciences and
telecommunications. Products include glass substrates; ceramic
substrates and filters; optical fiber, cable, hardware &
equipment; optical biosensors; and other advanced optics and
specialty glass solutions. The Company is based in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $18.4M for Bankruptcy in 3rd-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expenses related to W. R. Grace & Co.'s Chapter 11 proceedings,
net of filing entity interest income, were US$18.4 million in the
third quarter of 2009, compared with US$12 million in the prior
year quarter, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 26,
2009.

The Company's expenses related to its Chapter 11 proceedings, net
of filing entity interest income, were US$8 million in the second
quarter of 2009, compared with US$18 million in the second
quarter 2008. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order
to resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of
Reorganization and several associated documents, including a
disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court. The Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and
the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are co-
proponents of the Plan.

The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants and the
Representative for Future Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are
not co-proponents of the Plan.

The Plan is consistent with the terms of the previously announced
settlements of the Company's asbestos personal injury liability
and claims related to its former attic insulation product. The
Plan also requires the establishment of two asbestos trusts under
Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to which all present
and future asbestos-related claims would be channeled.

The evidentiary portion of the confirmation hearings on the Plan
was completed on Oct. 14, 2009. Closing arguments are scheduled
for Jan. 6, 2010 and Jan. 7, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500
million as of Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies were
US$1.7 billion as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$1.7 billion
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is based in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 70,282 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 70,282 asbestos claims as of Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with 76,181 claims as of Sept. 30, 2008, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

Asbestos claims against the Company dropped to 71,420 during the
three and six months ended June 30, 2009 from 81,979 claims
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company noted
696 new claims filed, 275 settlements, and 1,559 dismissals.
During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company noted
936 new claims filed, 323 settlements, and 6,411 dismissals.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company noted
2,900 new claims filed, 820 settlements, and 6,670 dismissals.
During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company noted
3,585 new claims filed, 963 settlements, and 7,440 dismissals.

Of the 70,282 pending claims as of Sept. 30, 2009, about 25,100
claims were pending in New York, about 14,200 claims were pending
in Mississippi, about 9,800 claims were pending in Texas and
about 2,100 claims were pending in Ohio.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters.

The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54 million, was made on
July 14, 2008, about two years after the adverse verdict, in the
Joseph Norris matter in Los Angeles, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

The second payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June
2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los
Angeles on April 21, 2009.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still to Pursue Appeal in Baccus' Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that it intends to pursue all available rights to
appeal an asbestos verdict in favor of James Baccus, according to
a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory damages of
US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan.
5, 2009.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to pursue an appeal over the verdict in the
asbestos case of Chief Brewer, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
2009.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles. The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Woodard Claim v. Crane Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal over a ruling in favor of Crane Co., in the
Dennis Woodard asbestos claim, is still pending.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Woodard claim in Los Angeles. The jury found that the Company was
responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of
plaintiffs' damages of US$16.93 million.

Based on California court rules on allocation and damages,
judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of US$1.65
million, plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company
filed a motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict.

On June 30, 2009 the court advised that the Company's motion was
granted and judgment was entered in favor of the Company.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $86.1M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) were US$86.1 million in the
nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2009 and US$71.1 million in the
nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company were US$59.3 million
during the six-month period ended June 30, 2009, compared with
US$43.4 million during the six-month period ended
June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, in the nine-month
periods ended Sept. 30, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2008 totaled US$34.8
million, (reflecting the receipt of US$14.5 million for full
policy buyout from Highlands Insurance Company) and US$34.9
million, respectively.

Total costs incurred were US$26.7 million during the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$27.7 million during the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Pre-tax cash payments were US$22.3 million during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$18.3 million during
the three months ended Sept. 30. 2008.

Cumulatively to date through Sept. 30, 2009, the Company has
resolved (by settlement or dismissal) about 57,600 claims. The
related cumulative settlement costs incurred by the Company and
its insurance carriers are about US$216 million, for an average
cost per resolved claim of US$3,756.

The average cost per claim resolved was US$4,186 during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008 and US$4,977 during the year ended Dec. 31,
2007.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Long-Term Sept. 30 Liability at $760.2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$760,184,000 as of
Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$839,496,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$791,187,000 as
of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$91 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$222,136,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$260,660,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$35.3
million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$41.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

Asbestos payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$22,253,000 during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with US$18,301,000 during the three months ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Asbestos payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$34,788,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with US$34,915,000 during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc. has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2009.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations
by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each
50 percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

As of the April 16, 2000 order, which stayed and enjoined
asbestos claims against the Company, the Company was one of many
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about
114,000 claims served on it.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

PPG Industries, Inc. supplies paints, coatings, optical products,
specialty materials, chemicals, glass and fiberglass. The Company
has more than 140 manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates
and operates in more than 60 countries. The Company is based in
Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cites $24.86M Sept. 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability was
US$24,860,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$23,758,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27,
2009.

The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$24,399,000 as of
June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)

Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures engine management and
air conditioning replacement parts for the automotive
aftermarket. Customers are auto parts warehouse distributors
(CARQUEST and NAPA) and auto parts retailers (Advance Auto Parts
and AutoZone). The Company is based in Long Island City, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reorganization Plan in Congoleum Filed Oct. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the Bondholders' Committee and
Congoleum Corporation, on Oct. 22, 2009, jointly filed a revised
plan of reorganization (Second Amended Joint Plan) and disclosure
statement, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

The Second Amended Joint Plan and disclosure statement were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
District Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the adequacy
of the disclosure statement for the Second Amended Joint Plan for
Nov. 19, 2009.

The Second Amended Joint Plan, if approved by the District Court
and accepted by the requisite creditor constituencies, would
permit the Company to exit Chapter 11 free of liability for
existing and future asbestos claims as provided in the Second
Amended Joint Plan.

Under the proposed terms of the Second Amended Joint Plan, it is
contemplated that a Plan Trust would be created that would assume
the liability for the Company's current and future asbestos
claims.

The Plan Trust would receive the proceeds of various settlements
the Company has reached with a number of insurance carriers and
would be assigned the Company's rights under its remaining
insurance policies covering asbestos product liability.

The Plan Trust also would receive 50.1 percent of the newly
issued common stock in reorganized Congoleum when the Second
Amended Joint Plan takes effect.

Congoleum Corporation makes flooring products for residential and
commercial use, including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or
vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial
flooring. The Company markets its products through distributors
in more than 40 North American locations and directly to large
market retailers. The Company is based in Mercerville, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Facing 26 Pending Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 26 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

The Company faced 25 pending asbestos cases. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)

To date, four asbestos cases have been dismissed. One new
asbestos case was filed in the third quarter of 2009. The Company
has not settled any asbestos lawsuit to date.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
asbestos and silica cases since inception was about US$100,000,
the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under
the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with
the Company's initial public offering in 1992.

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets specialty mineral,
mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting
systems and services. The Company has two reportable segments:
Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The Company is based in New
York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 517 Cases Ongoing v. Celanese Units at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two U.S. subsidiaries of Celanese Corporation, Celanese Ltd. and
CNA Holdings, LLC, as of Sept. 30, 2009, faced 517 asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, as of June 30, 2009, were
defendants in about 555 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 7, 2009)

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, about 41 new cases
were filed against the Company and 84 cases were resolved.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases.

Celanese Corporation is an integrated chemical and advanced
materials company. The Company's business involves processing
chemical raw materials like methanol, carbon monoxide and
ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-
added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based
products. The Company is based in Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cases Drop to 1,620 at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2009, recorded 1,620
outstanding asbestos cases for which the Company was responsible
for any related liabilities, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
26, 2009.

About 3,670 cases at June 30, 2009 were outstanding for which the
Company was responsible for any related liabilities. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2009)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When the Company originally acquired this
brake business, it assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2009, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$8.4 million.

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide the Company with limited insurance
coverage for the defense and indemnity costs associated with
certain asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims to the
insurance carrier for coverage under this agreement, and the
insurance carrier reimbursed the Company US$2.4 million for
settlement claims and defense costs. The Company has submitted
additional asbestos-related claims to the insurance carrier for
coverage.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2009. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$26.6 million to
US$66.3 million for the period through 2059.

The change from the prior year study was a US$1.3 million
increase for the low end of the range and a US$2.9 million
decrease for the high end of the range. An incremental US$2.2
million provision in the Company's discontinued operation was
added to the asbestos accrual in September 2009 increasing the
reserve to about US$26.6 million.

According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed
as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated to range from US$21.4 million to US$42 million during
the same period.

Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures engine management and
air conditioning replacement parts for the automotive
aftermarket. Customers are auto parts warehouse distributors
(CARQUEST and NAPA) and auto parts retailers (Advance Auto Parts
and AutoZone). The Company is based in Long Island City, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Has Cases in Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is still a defendant in asbestos
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

The cases allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete defense
and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under
the terms of the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with
them.

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract drilling
services to the energy industry. The Company has a fleet of 47
offshore rigs currently consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 14
jack-ups and a drillship. The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U. S. Steel Facing 465 Active Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2009, was a
defendant in 465 active asbestos cases involving 3,025 plaintiffs
(claims), according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2009.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company was a defendant in 415 active
cases involving 3,015 plaintiffs (claims). (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in 450 active cases
involving 3,050 plaintiffs.

About 2,550, or about 84 percent, of these claims are currently
pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive
numbers of plaintiffs.

Historically, about 89 percent of the cases against the Company
did not specify any damage amount or stated that the damages
sought exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of
the court in which the case was filed. Jurisdictional amounts
generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

During the period ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 180
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 155 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$7 million.

During the period ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 400
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 450 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$13 million.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel mill
products, including flat-rolled and tubular, in North America and
Central Europe. Operations in North America also include real
estate management and development, transportation services and
engineering and consulting services. The Company is based in
Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inactive Quaker Chem. Unit Faces Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was
acquired in 1978 still has numerous lawsuits alleging injury due
to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
27, 2009.

The subsidiary sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis. The subsidiary discontinued
operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the
proceeds from insurance settlements received.

To date, the majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. It is currently projected that the subsidiary's
total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about
US$12.2 million (excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted.

The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to
the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two
of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and
release agreements with the subsidiary for US$15 million in late
2005 and US$20 million in the first quarter of 2007.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with annual
installments of US$5 million, the first of which was received
early in the second quarter of 2007, the second of which was
received in the first quarter of 2008, and the third of which was
received in the first quarter of 2009.

The final installment is contingent upon whether or not Federal
asbestos legislation is adopted by the due date of such
installment.

If Federal asbestos legislation is so enacted, and such
legislation eliminates the carrier's obligation to make the
installment payment and requires the carrier to contribute into a
trust or similar vehicle as a result of the policies issued to
the subsidiary, then the insurance carrier's obligation to make
the final installment will be cancelled.

The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can be used
to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the
subsidiary's asbestos litigation. During the third quarter of
2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier
entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which
the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs
incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with
asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years
beginning July 1, 2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may
choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding
the application of the policy limits.

Quaker Chemical Corporation provides process chemicals, chemical
specialties, services, and technical expertise to industries
including: steel, automotive, mining, aerospace, tube and pipe,
coatings and construction materials. The Company is based in
Conshohocken, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Lawsuit v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc.,
continues to be stayed.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified
amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Reynolds American Inc. makes cigarettes and tobacco. Its
subsidiaries include R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; Lane, Limited; R. J. Reynolds
Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Company, LLC, Conwood Sales
Co., LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC and Rosswil LLC. The Company is based
in Winston-Salem, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to be defendants
in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current
business activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2009.

Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business
segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester. The Company is
based in Clayton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Cases Filed in Madison Co. During Oct. 12-16
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Oct. 12, 2009 through Oct. 16, 2009, a total
of 15 new asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-1102) Martha A. Barrett of Alabama claims the
   deceased Doyle H. Barrett developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a silk screen maker, printer, material handler,
   technician, packer, assembler, insulator, drywaller,
   dockworker and driver. Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and
   Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Barrett.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1100) Gordon and Judith Belcher of Texas claim
   Mr. Belcher developed lung cancer after his work as a member
   of the U.S. Navy and as a boiler inspector at Cumy Commercial
   Union, Indian Insurance Company, Cummin Froster U.S. Fire,
   Home Insurance Company, Factory Mutual and American General.
   Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
   Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent the
   Belchers.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1086) Patricia Broadfoot of Missouri claims
   her deceased husband, Darmon Broadfoot, developed pleural
   plaques after his work as a laborer, miner and driller.
   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 Mrs.
   Broadfoot.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1091) Tywana M. Dantzler of Louisiana claims
   her deceased father, Bobbyn Dantzler, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a welder 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 Ms. Dantzler.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1095) Albert Dorgan of Massachusetts, an
   insulator and police officer, claims mesothelioma. Brian J.
   Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Dorgan.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1089) L.J. Hilson of Illinois, a laborer and
   operator, 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. Hilson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1093) Catherine Hupp of West Virginia claims
   her deceased husband, Billy D. Hupp, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a tank operator 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 Mrs. Hupp.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1087) Jesse E. Miller Jr. of Missouri claims
   his deceased father, Jesse Miller, developed asbestosis after
   his work as a laborer. 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. Miller.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1101) Kathleen Laramie of Missouri, a worker
   at various locations, claims mesothelioma. Shane F. Hampton,
   Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms.
   Laramie.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1084) Fred E. Nelson of Illinois, a painter
   and drywall applicator, a painter at General Electric, a
   painter at the General Motors Foundry and a painter at Quaker
   Oats, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori,
   Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Nelson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1092) Ambus Pearson of Illinois, a maintenance
   technician and home remodeler, 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. Pearson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1085) Michael and Jennifer Pikaart of Michigan
   claim Mr. Pikaart developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   farm hand, laborer, manager, seaman and factory worker. Shane
   F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent the Pikaarts.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1088) Sharon Sale and Paula Sarno of
   California claim their deceased father, Lloyd Sale, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a telecommunications
   installer. 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 the
   Sales.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1090) Elmer Wallace claims his deceased wife,
   Audrey Wallace, developed mesothelioma after her work as a
   laborer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Wallace.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1083) James L. and Leone A. Wallace claim Mr.
   Wallace developed mesothelioma after he worked around
   asbestos fibers. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
   Wallaces.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1094) William Watson, a member of the U.S.
   Navy, a stocker at the General Electric Company and an
   automobile mechanic, claims mesothelioma. Richard L. Saville
   Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Watson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Coal Miner's Death Linked to Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of a 69-year-old British former
coal miner, John Dobb, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the
Evening Post reports.

Mr. Dobb worked at Bentinck Colliery aged 18, where he was
exposed to asbestos.

Mr. Dobb was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2009. He was
admitted to the John Eastwood Hospice in Sutton-in-Ashfield on
Sept. 15, 2009. He died on Oct. 7, 2009. A post-mortem
examination found the cause of death to be pulmonary embolism
caused by malignant mesothelioma.

Notts Coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Carbide Worker to Get Award on Monthly Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Conley, a former chemical plant operator and electrician
for Union Carbide Corporation, was awarded "substantial"
compensation for his asbestos-related injuries, but will receive
such compensation on a monthly basis, the Charleston Gazette
reports.

Mr. Conley is terminally ill from malignant mesothelioma.

Wells Fargo Disability Management, a third-party administrator
that handles work injury claims in West Virginia, plans to pay
the 85-year-old Mr. Conley his award over a period of several
years.

The problem with that, said Mr. Conley's lawyer, E. William
Harvit, Esq., of Charleston, W.Va., is this: People diagnosed
with mesothelioma often live for only a few months. He said,
"Instead of paying Mr. Conley a lump sum -- which could legally
be done -- he is receiving a small amount on a monthly basis. At
this pace, it is likely that he will only collect a very small
portion of his award.

The West Virginia Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board confirmed Mr.
Conley's diagnosis on Oct. 16, 2008, making him eligible for
permanent disability payments.

In January 2009, Mr. Harvit asked Wells Fargo to pay Mr. Conley
in one lump sum, but Wells Fargo did not respond to Mr. Harvit's
original request for three months.

An April 10, 2009 memo from Claims Consultant Anne Cecil to Mr.
Harvit stated, "Your request has been forwarded to the Office of
the Insurance Commission, and is currently under review. We will
contact you as soon as we receive their decision in this matter."

Mr. Harvit asked Wells Fargo about the case again in a July 2,
2009 letter. No one responded.

On Oct. 23, 3009, Mr. Harvit said, "The legislative purpose of
enacting Workers' Compensation was to provide prompt and fair
compensation to workers for injuries and diseases which occurred
as a direct result of their employment. In this case, the purpose
of Workers' Compensation is not being fulfilled. Mesothelioma is
fatal, and most people do not live very long with the disease."

Mr. Conley's wife might be able to receive benefits after he
dies, but she also might face legal delays.

Additionally, other legal complications could potentially arise
if Mr. Conley dies from a different cause, such as a car
accident, instead of mesothelioma.

Jason Butcher, a public information specialist for Insurance
Commissioner Jane Cline, said he could not comment on the status
of the case. He said, "That is private information. Whenever the
ruling is over, we can tell you what has been ruled, but we can't
give out any information before that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Elgin Owner Facing Fines for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials in Middletown, N.Y., are ready to penalize Elgin Realty
owner, Joe Klein, who owns the former Classy Leather Goods
warehouse, for asbestos cleanup violations, Mesothelioma reports.

The incident arose when an unnamed city building inspector came
upon a work crew leaving the building with bags of asbestos that
they planned to dump, presumably in a local landfill.

The inspector shut down the operation and called New York State's
Labor Department Asbestos Control Bureau, which regulates
asbestos remediation and removal. A Labor Department inspector
showed up a day later.

Middletown Public Works Commissioner Jacob Tawil observed the
closure, and Middletown resident West Solloway, who owns an
adjacent warehouse (Fort Knox Self Storage), has been complaining
about the removal for months.

Mr. Solloway noted that workers are breaking up asbestos-
containing material up with sledgehammers without the benefit of
masks or other protective gear.

According to Mr. Solloway, his repeated complaints to city and
state agencies about the removal have been ignored, even though
he has documentation from the Labor Department that verifies the
presence of asbestos-related materials in the building as
recently as June 2009.

The warehouse, comprised of several contiguous buildings, also
houses a Family Empowerment Council program, which provides vital
services to the handicapped.

According to Labor Department spokeswoman Karen Williamson, Mr.
Klein will be charged with failing to use a licensed asbestos
contractor, failing to use workers licensed in asbestos removal,
failing to perform the removal according to established asbestos
removal standards, and failing to dispose of materials as
prescribed, in a hazardous waste-certified landfill.

The amount of fines, which will be determined by the Labor
Department, remains undetermined.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otway's Claim for GBP150,000 v. Nestle Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Otway's asbestos claim for GBP150,000 against Nestle UK
Ltd is ongoing, the Telegraph reports.

The claim was filed on behalf of Ms. Otway's father, Robert
Otway, who died of mesothelioma in September 2006.

Ms. Otway and her family seek up to GBP150,000 in compensation in
what experts believe could be the first of a series of claims
related to asbestos conditions.

Mr. Otway was 70 years old when he died. Previously a fit man who
would walk for miles around his home city of Norwich, England, he
was left housebound after contracting mesothelioma.

Mr. Otway worked on the Rolo line of a Nestle factory in
Chaplefield, Norwich, in the 1960s and 1970s, during which time
his family claims he was exposed to a "foreseeably harmful level
of asbestos."

The lawsuit claims "little or no preventative measures were
taken" against asbestos exposure and estimates Mr. Otway would
have lived 11 more years if he had not contracted mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prendergast Charged for W.Va. Abatement Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Prendergast, the 47-year-old former head of the West
Virginia Capitol's asbestos abatement program, was sentenced to a
year in prison in federal court in Maryland, the Charleston
Gazette reports.

Mr. Prendergast, of Gaithersburg, Md., pleaded guilty in October
2007 to violating the federal Travel Act by leaking confidential
bidding information to a company in Maryland.

The firm, which used other firms' bid information to undercut its
competitors and win multiple bids, rewarded Mr. Prendergast with
thousands of dollars in kickbacks and a high-paid position with
an associated company after he left West Virginia.

Mr. Prendergast was the occupational health and safety
coordinator for the West Virginia State Department of
Administration's General Services Division between 1998 and 2003.

Mr. Prendergast oversaw the removal of asbestos and lead from
buildings on the Capitol Complex, and awarded multiple bids to a
Maryland contracting company, identified in court documents as
Environmental and Demolition Services Inc. In return, he accepted
checks from EDS for US$6,000 in December 2000 and US$2,500 in
July 2002.

When Mr. Prendergast left General Services, he went to work for a
company controlled by the same principals as EDS, court records
show.

Between April 2003 and January 2005, Mr. Prendergast earned
US$85,000 in "salary" from the company, and accepted an
additional US$55,000 from a subcontractor under his supervision
as a project manager for the company.

In 2001, Mr. Prendergast negotiated a joint venture with EDS
involving landfill in West Virginia, with the understanding that
he would share in the proceeds, according to his plea agreement.
The Gazette reported in 2007 that state records show that between
1998 and 2005, the state paid that firm US$329,634 for asbestos
abatement work.

In addition to a prison sentence of one year and one day, U.S.
District Judge Peter J. Messitte of Maryland fined Mr.
Prendergast US$3,000, according to the Maryland U.S. Attorney's
Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CO WATCH Probe on Denver Water Incident Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Investigator Adrienne Anderson's and her group's
(CO WATCH) investigation, into Denver Water's alleged illegal
asbestos disposal activities, is ongoing, Fox 31 reports.

Joseph Pacheco is one of several former Denver Water employees
who say they were told to illegally dump asbestos and other
hazardous chemicals on a lot at 12th and Sheridan in Denver,
Colo., about 20 years ago. He says the water company forced them
to keep quiet about it.

However, the workers are speaking out because they say they are
sick from the contamination and they fear others will be exposed
to the hazardous waste when crews start digging up the land for
the west corridor RTD Fast Tracks line and a new light rail
station.

Ms. Anderson and CO WATCH has been looking into the history of
the site and says the contamination could pose a threat to RTD
workers and the public.

Ms. Anderson says Denver Water should be responsible for the
clean up of the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe on Allegations of AUD57T "Bribe" Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Police in Victoria, Australia, are investigating allegations of
asbestos-related bribery and corruption at the Mercy Hospital
site in East Melbourne after a secret recording implicated a
prominent developer in an AUD57,000 "bribe" offer, The Age
reports.

On Oct. 26, 2009, the Australian Building and Construction
Commissioner, John Lloyd, said the allegations had been referred
to the police.

The Age revealed on Oct. 24, 2009 that Salta developer Sam
Tarascio Sr. was named in a secret recording as being behind a
"bribe" offer to a safety representative on the site, Jack
Andrews, just days after workers were exposed to asbestos.

George Wason, a former senior union leader turned industrial
fixer, confirmed on the tape that Mr. Tarascio Sr. was behind the
AUD57,000 offer to Mr. Andrews.

Bill Oliver, state secretary of the Construction, Forestry,
Mining and Energy Union, is also named on the tape as being
involved in talks over the offer to Mr. Andrews.

Salta managing director Sam Tarascio Jr. claimed the offer was
not a bribe, rather a discussion about "early retirement,"
although senior industry sources said the offer was far in excess
of what Mr. Andrews was entitled to and was a "bribe."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $956Mil for Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$956
million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$522 million as of
Sept. 30, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Oct.
28 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$828
million at June 30, 2009, compared with US$530 million at June
30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$510 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$428 million
as of Sept. 30, 2008.

Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical products, services and
solutions for many of the world's most essential needs and
industries. The Company operates through five commercial units:
Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water
Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer
Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution. The Company is
based in Covington, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court OKs Remand Bid in Madden Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
affirmed the plaintiff's motion to remand in an asbestos-related
case styled John Madden, Plaintiff v. A.H. Voss Company, et al.,
Defendants.

District Judge Jeffrey S. White entered judgment in Case No. C
09-03786 JSW on Oct. 21, 2009.

On June 30, 2009, John Madden filed this action in San Francisco
Superior Court. On Aug. 18, 2009, he filed, in state court, a
declaration by David R. Donadio in which he stated that
"Plaintiff's claims against defendant Leslie Controls, Inc.
exclude plaintiff's asbestos exposure at military and federal
government jobsites and aboard U.S. Navy vessels."

On Aug. 18, 2009, Leslie Controls removed this matter on the
grounds that Mr. Madden's alleged occupational exposure to
asbestos occurred aboard various U.S. Naval ships, and that
Leslie Controls, in its manufacture and sale of equipment for the
U.S. Navy, was acting under the direction of an officer of the
United States.

Mr. Madden moved to remand this action and Leslie Controls moved
to stay this action pending a ruling on a motion to transfer the
action by the MDL.

The hearing set for Oct. 23, 2009 was vacated. The Court granted
the motion to remand and denied as moot the motion to stay. The
matter shall be remanded to the Superior Court for the City and
County of San Francisco.


                            *********

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  * * *