CAR_Public/091127.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 235
  
                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Reaches Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Inks Shareholder Settlement in Texas Lawsuit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Plea to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces Suit on "Unlawful Phone Calls" in Wash.
DUANE READE: Court Gives Final Nod to Settlement in 2 FLSA Suits

ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls 900 ICON & Kenmore PRO Gas Ranges
FASHION OPTIONS: Recalls 5,400 Boy's Velour Warm-Up Sets
GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Suit Parties File Joint Case Management Order
GT SOLAR: NH District Court Denies Plea to Dismiss "Braun" Suit
HARRIS STRATEX: Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Delaware

HEELYS INC: Settles Securities Class Action & Derivative Lawsuits
LEXMARK: Calif. Employee Use-It-Or-Lose-It Suit Nears Final Phase
MICROSOFT CORP: Blocked Xbox Live Users Mull Class Action Suit
OXIGENE INC: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Owe to VaxGen Merger Plan
PHILIP MORRIS: Ex-Smoker Wins $300 Million Verdict in Florida

QUIZNOS: Secures Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in New York
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Glancy Binkow Appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel
SOUTHERN STAR: Plea in Decertification of "Price I" Suit Pending
SOUTHERN STAR: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Price II" Case

ST. JUDE: Court Strikes Remaining Claims Seeking Class Status
STERLING CHEMICALS: Continues to Defended vs. Ex-Employees Suit
TELLABS INC: Continues to Defend "Makor Issues" Suit in Illinois
TELLABS INC: Seventh Circuit Dismisses Illinois "Brieger" Suit

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

HANSEN MEDICAL: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
WESTERN COAL: Kim Orr Files Shareholder Complaint in Canada

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 97,400 Open Cases Ongoing v. EnPro at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Commences 10 Trials During 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has 6 Pending Garlock Appeals at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has $67.2MM in New Settlement Commitments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $252.7Mil Coverage at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Records $992Mil Carolinas Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $19.1M Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright, Units Still Face Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 1,128 Non-Maritime Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&F Still Incurs No Material Amount at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Williams' Bid for Reconsideration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Board Ruling in Brown Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Pharmacia's Bid in Catania Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, Unit Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling, Units Still Facing Miss. Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Group, BGE Face 499 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Inc. Cites Pneumo Abex Obligation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Facing Product Liability Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Still Subject to Coverage Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.72M Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Has 104 Pending Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CH Energy Faces 1,187 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Records 430 Damage Claims at Oct. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Involved in Personal Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $923M Excess Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Cites $52.2M Libby Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Facing DEP's Lawsuit in New Jersey

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,945 Claims Pending Against Albany at Oct. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7,907 Claims Ongoing Against Brandon at Oct. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Named in Mt. Vernon Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Accrues $1.5Mil ARO at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boss Holdings Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Chem. Involved in Cases From Belpre Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No New Development in Scott Suit v. Chase Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Injury Action v. Chase Filed on June 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Facing 10,900 Lawsuits at Sept. 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 27 New Actions Filed During Nov. 2-6 in Madison

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dees Case v. 100 Firms Filed on Nov. 19 in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cunningham Lawsuit v. Chevron Filed on Nov. 20
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Boilermaker Awarded $3Mil in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newark Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Lagger's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 New Suits Filed During Nov. 9-14 in Madison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marlborough Plumber's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered at Three Seoul Subway Stations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maasz Family Awarded GBP98T in Asbestos Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paragon Supervisor Admits to Cleanup Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Horley Plant Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Airport Seeking Bids for Cleanup, Repairs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amphibole Asbestos Found in Four Japanese Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Allegheny Total 861 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Co.

                            *********

ADAMS GOLF: Reaches Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Golf, Inc., on Oct. 29, 2009, reached a settlement in
principle regarding the consolidated securities class action
filed in June 1999 in the U.S. District Court of the District of
Delaware, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
company's IPO and sought rescissory or compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

In particular, the complaints alleged that the company's
prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially
false and misleading.

The settlement remains subject to final documentation as well as
approval by the Court, approval by the shareholder class, and is
subject to appeal.

The proposed settlement provides for a total payment to the class
of $16.5 million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25
million, after attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if
any) by the company in connection with the company's litigation
against its former insurance broker (Thilman & Filipini, LLC) and
it's former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company.

Of the $16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5 million will be
paid by the company, which the company will record as a charge
during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

If approved, the settlement will lead to a dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the litigation.

As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO have
agreed to release the company from any indemnification
obligation.   Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs'
allegations, the company believes it is in the best interests of
its stockholders to proceed with this settlement.  

Adams Golf, Inc. -- http://www.adamsgolf.com/-- incorporated in  
1987, designs, assembles, markets and distributes golf clubs for
all skill levels, including Speedline drivers and hybrid fairway
woods, Idea Tech a4 and a4 OS I-woods and irons, Idea a3 and a3
OS I-woods and irons, Idea Pro Gold I-woods and irons and Insight
Tech a4 and a4 OS drivers and hybrid-fairway woods, RPM family
drivers and fairway woods and irons, the Ovation family of
drivers, fairway woods and irons, Tom Watson signature wedges.  
In addition, under Women's Golf Unlimited the company distributes
the Lady Fairway and Square 2 brands.


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Inks Shareholder Settlement in Texas Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation (NYSE: XRX) and Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc. (NYSE: ACS) have resolved claims ACS shareholders made in
Rahe v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-
13786 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 14th J. Dist., Dallas Cty.), related to
Xerox's proposed acquisition of ACS. In a stipulation agreed to
by the parties, the plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion for a
temporary and/or permanent injunction.

The parties agreed that if ACS's board of directors receives a
superior proposal, and, as a result, withdraws its recommendation
of the Xerox acquisition, Xerox will not enforce requirements in
its voting agreement with ACS Chairman Darwin Deason that
obligate Mr. Deason to vote any of his shares of ACS common stock
in favor of the Xerox acquisition. In addition, Xerox, will not
enforce any requirements of the Merger Agreement that compel ACS
to hold the ACS stockholders' meeting to vote on the Xerox
transaction and if requested by ACS, Xerox will terminate the
Merger Agreement in accordance with its terms.

The plaintiffs have agreed to stay prosecution of City of St.
Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System, et al. v. ACS, et
al., No. CC-09-07377-C.  In re ACS Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 4940-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct.), remains pending.  

Headquartered in Dallas, ACS's 76,000 professionals support
thousands of multinational corporations and government agencies
in over 100 countries from 500 locations. It offers business
process outsourcing support in areas that include finance, human
resources, information technology, transaction processing, and
customer care.

Headquartered in Norwalk, Conn., Xerox Corporation's 54,000
people represent the world's leading document management,
technology and services enterprise, providing the industry's
broadest portfolio of color and black-and-white document
processing systems and related supplies, as well as document
management consulting and outsourcing services.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Plea to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corp.'s motion to dismiss a purported class action
lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's Nov.
10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in Superior Court in King County, Washington
by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota, North
Carolina and Washington.

The lawsuit generally alleges that:

     -- the company disseminated false advertising about the
        quality and reliability of its services;

     -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

     -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
        Service to the detriment of customers.

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks:

     -- a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted
        on a class-wide basis;

     -- an order declaring certain provisions of the company's
        Terms of Service, including the early termination fee
        provision, void and unenforceable;

     -- an injunction prohibiting the company from collecting
        early termination fees and further false advertising;

     -- restitution of any early termination fees paid by the
        company's subscribers;

     -- equitable relief; and

     -- an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On May 27, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed and served, adding
seven additional plaintiffs, including individuals from New
Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin.

On June 2, 2009, plaintiffs served the Amended Complaint.

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

On July 23, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Briefing was complete Sept. 18, 2009; the company awaits a ruling
from the court.

The Court has stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion.

The court has not set a trial date.

Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and  
operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet
communications.  Its wireless broadband networks cover entire
communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that not
only creates a new communications path into the home or office,
but also provides a broadband connection anytime and anywhere
within its coverage area. It offers services in both domestic and
international markets.  The company's services consist primarily
of providing wireless broadband connectivity, but in some of its
domestic markets, it also offers voice-over Internet protocol
(VoIP) telephony services.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, The company
operated its networks in 51 markets in the United States and
Europe covering approximately 18.2 million people, and as of Dec.
31, 2008, it had approximately 475,000 wireless broadband
subscribers.  The company's networks in the United States were
deployed in 47 markets and covered an estimated 15.3 million
people.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces Suit on "Unlawful Phone Calls" in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corp. faces a a purported class action lawsuit alleging
it placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing and
announcing devices, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 1, 2009, the company served with a purported class
action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court.  The
complaint alleges the company placed unlawful telephone calls
using automatic dialing and announcing devices.

The compalint seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and statutory damages under federal and state law.

On Oct. 1, 2009, the company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the court issued a stipulated order granting
plaintiff until Oct. 29, 2009 to file an Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 29, 2009 dropping
the pre-existing state law claims and adding a new state law
claim.

The company's response was due Nov. 18, 2009.

Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and  
operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet
communications.  Its wireless broadband networks cover entire
communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that not
only creates a new communications path into the home or office,
but also provides a broadband connection anytime and anywhere
within its coverage area. It offers services in both domestic and
international markets.  The company's services consist primarily
of providing wireless broadband connectivity, but in some of its
domestic markets, it also offers voice-over Internet protocol
(VoIP) telephony services.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, The company
operated its networks in 51 markets in the United States and
Europe covering approximately 18.2 million people, and as of Dec.
31, 2008, it had approximately 475,000 wireless broadband
subscribers.  The company's networks in the United States were
deployed in 47 markets and covered an estimated 15.3 million
people.


DUANE READE: Court Gives Final Nod to Settlement in 2 FLSA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final approval to the Memorandum of Understanding to
settle the two class action cases against Duane Reade Holdings,
Inc., according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 26, 2009.

In November 2004, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint, Damassia v. Duane Reade Inc.  The lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges that, from the period beginning
November 1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the
title "Assistant Manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these
employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York law.

In April 2006, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint, Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and Duane Reade
Holdings, Inc.  The complaint alleged that, from a period
beginning March 2000, the company incorrectly classified certain
employees in an attempt to avoid paying overtime to such
employees, thereby violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York law.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

In May 2008, the court certified the two cases as class actions.

In January 2009, the company announced that, without admitting
liability, it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle these two class action cases for $3.5 million.

The settlement was subject to the approval of the court.

While the company believed that it could strongly defend itself
against the matters involved in this litigation, it agreed to
this settlement in order to avoid future defense costs and
uncertainty surrounding this litigation.

As a result of this settlement agreement, the company recorded a
$3.5 million one-time, pre-tax charge during the fourth quarter
ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The litigation settlement required the company to obtain a letter
of credit for the payment of the $3.5 million obligation.  The
company has obtained the necessary letter of credit and after a
hearing on July 24, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

In August 2009, following the final approval of the settlement by
the court, the company paid the $3.5 million settlement and
received authorization from the Court to terminate the related
letter of credit.

Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.duanereade.com/-- is a  
drugstore chain in New York City.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the
company operated 148 of its 251 stores in Manhattan's business
and residential districts.  In addition, at December 27, 2008, it
operated 77 stores in New York and 26 stores in the New York and
New Jersey suburbs, including the Hudson River communities of
northeastern New Jersey, as well as Westchester, Nassau and
Suffolk counties in New York.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company
operated 251 stores, 15 of which were opened during the fiscal
year ended December 27, 2008 (fiscal 2008).  It closed six
stores, during fiscal 2008.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, approximately
59% of its stores were in Manhattan, 31% were in the outer
boroughs of New York City and 10% were located outside New York
City.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company occupied 1.7 million
square feet of retail space.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls 900 ICON & Kenmore PRO Gas Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Augusta, Ga., announced a
voluntary recall of about 900 Electrolux ICON and Kenmore 30" PRO
Gas Ranges.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

An incorrect part allows more fuel to pass to the range's oven
than can be burned efficiently, causing incomplete combustion and
the release of carbon monoxide.  This poses a risk of carbon
monoxide poisoning to consumers.

Electrolux has received four reports of incidents involving
carbon monoxide being released from the recalled gas range.  
No injuries have been reported.

The following Electrolux ICON and Kenmore PRO 30" free-standing
gas range model and serial numbers are included in this recall.
For Electrolux ICON, the model and serial numbers are located on
the back of the range.  For the Kenmore PRO, the model and serial
numbers are located near the base of the range just below the
bottom right portion of the oven door and also on the back of the
range.  Not all serial numbers within these ranges are included
in the recall.

Brand: Model
Electrolux ICON Gas Range: E30GF74HPS
Kenmore PRO 30" Gas Range: 790.76913800, 790.76913801


Serial Number Range for all brands/models: NF83000000 -
NF93633000

Pictures of the recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10048.html

The recalled ranges were manufactured in Canada, and sold at
appliance retailers nationwide from August 2008 through October
2009 for between $2,500 and $3,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the range's oven and
contact Electrolux for the Electrolux ICON or Sears for the
Kenmore PRO to schedule a free repair.  Consumers can continue to
use the cooktop (top burners) and the broiler as well as any
clock and/or timer functions.  For additional information,
contact Electrolux toll-free at (888) 360-8557 between 8:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and on
Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.gasrangeorifice.com/ Consumers with  
Kenmore PRO brand ranges should call Sears toll-free at
(800) 733-2299 between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Saturday.


FASHION OPTIONS: Recalls 5,400 Boy's Velour Warm-Up Sets
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KT Group Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,400 Boy's Velour Warm-up Sets.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have drawstrings through the hoods, posing a
strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines (which were incorporated in to an industry voluntary
standard in 1997) to help prevent children from strangling or
getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves boy's hooded sweatshirts style B639BC in
colors black, chocolate and charcoal. The velour sweatshirts were
sold in sizes S, M, L, or XL and have the name "Beverly Hills
Polo Club" on the hangtag and on the center back neck.  Pictures
of the recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10047.html

The warm-up sets were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory nationwide from September 2007 through
October 2009.  The sweatshirts sold for about $15.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment any
Burlington Coat Factory store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Fashion Options collect at (212) 947-2223
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.fashionoptions.com/


GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Suit Parties File Joint Case Management Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the putative securities class-action suit
captioned, Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., on Nov.
6, 2009, submitted a proposed joint case management order to the
New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough
County, Southern District.

On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class-action suit was
filed in New Hampshire State Court, under the caption, "Hamel v.
GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," against the company,
certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters
of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering.

The Company removed the state class action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008.

The state class-action suit was consolidated with the federal
class actions on Nov. 25, 2008.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State
Court.

The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act.

The state class-action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in
certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for
the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other
public statements, regarding the company's business relationship
with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's customers, JYT
Corporation, one of the company's competitors, and certain of
the company's products, including its DSS furnaces.

Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
State Court should deem just and proper.

On May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class
action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the
consolidated federal case.

At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state
court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by
the parties.

According to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 26, 2009, with the denial of the motion to dismiss the
federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case
management order to the State Court on Nov. 6, 2009.

GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is
provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing
solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry.  The company's
products and solutions are used for production of solar grade
polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers,
production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules.  GT
Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design
and integration know-how with its equipment.  The company offers
its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a
worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are
to customers outside the United States.  Effective Jan. 1, 2006,
GT Solar Holdings, LLC acquired the company.


GT SOLAR: NH District Court Denies Plea to Dismiss "Braun" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied
GT Solar International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in Braun et al v. GT Solar International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312 (New Hampshire) (Laplante,
J.).  Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties
submitted a proposed joint case management order to the Court on
Nov. 6, 2009.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class-
action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the
company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others,
including certain investors in the company.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
federal class actions into a single action captioned, "Braun et
al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al."

The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel in the consolidated matter on Oct. 29, 2008.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Dec. 22, 2008.

The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the
Securities Act.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in
certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and
Prospectus for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, and other public statements, regarding the company's
business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's
customers, JYT Corporation, one of the company's competitors,
and certain of the company's products, including its DSS
furnaces.

Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other
relief as the Court should deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on Feb. 5, 2009.

On Sept. 22, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion.

Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted
a proposed joint case management order to the Court, according to
the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq.
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St.
          P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Phone: 603-668-0300
          E-mail: ccole@sheehan.com

               - and -

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          E-mail: mblauner@shulaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
          Nixon Peabody LLP
          900 Elm St, 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Phone: 603-628-4047
          E-mail: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq.
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-526-6000
          E-mail: william.paine@wilmerhale.com


HARRIS STRATEX: Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009.

The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors were named in a federal securities class
action complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008 by plaintiff Norfolk
County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the company's securities from Jan. 29, 2007 to July
30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who
exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the company's
shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the
Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation.

Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and
Oct. 30, 2008.

Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. -- http://www.harrisstratex.com/
-- together with its subsidiaries, is a global supplier of
wireless network solutions and network management software,
backed by a suite of professional services and support.  The
company designs, manufactures and sells a range of wireless
networking products, solutions and services to mobile and fixed
telephone service providers, private network operators,
government agencies, transportation and utility companies, public
safety agencies and broadcast system operators across the globe.  
Products include broadband wireless access base stations and
customer premises equipment based upon the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers 802.16d-2004 and 16e-2005
standards for fixed and mobile Worldwide Interoperability for
Microwave Access, Inc., point-to-point digital microwave radio
systems for access, backhaul, trunking and license-exempt
applications, supporting new network deployments, network
expansion, and capacity upgrades.


HEELYS INC: Settles Securities Class Action & Derivative Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heelys, Inc. (NASDAQ: HLYS) disclosed that on November 17, 2009,
the federal judge presiding over the previously disclosed
consolidated securities class action and consolidated shareholder
derivative action approved the settlements of those lawsuits and
signed a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
with respect to each lawsuit.  These cases were pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division. These settlement agreements were described in the
Company's prior filings.  Defendants did not admit any liability
or wrongdoing in the settlements.

Gary L. Martin, chairman of the board of Heelys, Inc., commented
"although the Company continues to believe that the claims
asserted in these lawsuits were without merit and that defendants
would have prevailed at trial, we are pleased to have resolved
these claims and to continue to focus on Heelys' business
initiatives."

The consolidated securities class action, Brian Rines,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs.
Heelys, Inc., et al., arose from a number of lawsuits filed in
the latter part of 2007.  The plaintiffs asserted claims under
the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of
its former and current officers and directors in connection with
the Company's 2006 initial public offering. The consolidated
derivative action, In Re Heelys Inc. Derivative Litigation, arose
from lawsuits that were originally filed in the latter part of
2007 against certain of The Company's former and current officers
and directors. Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty and
other claims relating to the Company's 2006 initial public
offering.  The Company's insurance policies funded the majority
of the settlement amounts and related legal defense costs. As
previously disclosed, during the third quarter of 2009, the
Company paid its share of the settlement amounts for those
matters. Also as part of the settlement of the derivative action,
the Company has agreed to institute certain corporate governance
changes.

Heelys, Inc. designs, markets and distributes innovative, action
sports-inspired products under the HEELYS(R) brand targeted to
the youth market. The Company's primary product, HEELYS-wheeled
footwear, is patented dual purpose footwear that incorporates a
stealth, removable wheel in the heel. HEELYS-wheeled footwear
allows the user to seamlessly transition from walking or running
to rolling by shifting weight to the heel. Users can transform
HEELYS-wheeled footwear into street footwear by removing the
wheel. HEELYS-wheeled footwear provides users with a unique
combination of fun and style that differentiates it from other
footwear and wheeled sports products.


LEXMARK: Calif. Employee Use-It-Or-Lose-It Suit Nears Final Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Sloan at the Lexington Herald-Leader reports that closing
briefs will soon be filed in the damages phase of a class-action
lawsuit against Lexmark by its California employees.

The case involves vacation time and Lexmark's use-it-or-lose-it
policy that a former employee claimed was against California law.
In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Alarcon ruled
the policy was indeed against California law that "prohibits
employer policies that require employees to forfeit vested
vacation and/or deny employees vacation wages to which they are
entitled upon termination."

According to the ruling, Lexmark has employed 181 current and
former workers in California from its inception in 1991 to the
present.

The plaintiff, Ron Molina, and the class are seeking more than
$16 million in damages, said Sheila Thomas, Esq., an attorney for
the plaintiff.

Lexmark declined to comment on the case but spokesman Jerry
Grasso said it would likely appeal the ruling.

Mr. Molina also has an individual suit ongoing against Lexmark.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Molina, a former salesman for the company,
had his commission structure retroactively changed, shorting him
about $100,000.

A trial was held in the individual case, but a ruling has not yet
been issued.


MICROSOFT CORP: Blocked Xbox Live Users Mull Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Eddy at eWeek.com reports that a boutique Texas law firm
has established a forum for Microsoft Xbox 360 owners who feel
they were unfairly banned from the company's Xbox Live service,
in the interest of filing a class action suit against Microsoft.

Following the decision by Xbox 360 console maker Microsoft to ban
users from the Xbox Live service, intellectual property law firm
AbingtonIP began conducting an investigation into Microsoft's
business practices regarding the ban. "Microsoft has chosen to
use one of the most indiscriminate "weapons" in its arsenal in an
effort to combat piracy -- as a result, use of this "weapon" has
resulted in a great deal of collateral damage -- many people were
affected who had nothing to do with piracy," the firm states on
its Web site. "Furthermore, Xbox console functions that have
nothing to do with piracy were also affected or disabled. Details
aside, Microsoft's bans could (and should) have been more
measured." AbigntonIP posted a forum to allow Xbox 360 owners who
felt their account had been unfairly terminated to voice their
objections, first noticed by the gaming blog Inc Gamers.

"As has been reported widely in the media, tens of thousands of
Xbox owners have had their modified Xbox consoles banned from
Microsoft's online gaming service Xbox Live. Although
modification of Xbox consoles is "arguably" against the terms of
use for Xbox/Xbox Live, Microsoft "conveniently" timed the Xbox
console ban to coincide with the release of the new Call of Duty:
Modern Warfare 2 game and less than two months after the release
of the very popular Halo 3: ODST game," the firm charges.  "This
'convenient' timing may have resulted in more Xbox Live
subscription revenues for Microsoft than it would have generated
had these Xbox console bans taken place at some time before the
release of [these games].  Additionally, sales of both Call of
Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Halo 3: ODST would likely have been
greatly diminished had the Xbox console ban occurred prior to the
release of these games."

Earlier this month, Microsoft banned up to 1 million consoles
from the community online gaming service Xbox Live after
suspecting the devices had been "modded", or altered to allow
downloads of pirated software, leading to a flurry of modded
consoles for sale on eBay and Craigslist. The report came amid
the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, one of the most
highly anticipated game titles of the year. On November 4,
Microsoft's director of programming for the company's gaming
network Xbox Live, Larry 'Major Nelson' Hryb, wrote a blog post
acknowledging Microsoft has been actively banning modified Xbox
360 consoles that are able to play pirated games.

"Our commitment to combat piracy and support safer and more
secure gameplay for the more than 20 million members of our Xbox
Live community remains a top priority," he wrote. "All consumers
should know that piracy is illegal, and that modifying their Xbox
360 console to play pirated discs, violates the Xbox Live terms
of use, will void their warranty and result in a ban from Xbox
Live."


OXIGENE INC: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Owe to VaxGen Merger Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
OXiGENE Inc., faces a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
as a result of entering into a definitive merger agreement to
acquire VaxGen, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed against VaxGen, Inc., members of the VaxGen board of
directors, OXiGENE and the merger subsidiary formed by OXiGENE to
conduct the merger of VaxGen and OXiGENE, in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo.

The action, styled William Ming v. VaxGen, Inc., et al., alleges,
among other things, that the members of the VaxGen board of
directors violated their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
value for VaxGen's stockholders when negotiating and entering
into the merger agreement.

The complaint alleges that OXiGENE aided and abetted those
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
acquisition of VaxGen by OXiGENE or, in the alternative, to
rescind the acquisition should it occur before the lawsuit is
resolved.

The complaint does not specify an amount of damages that is
sought by the plaintiff.

OXiGENE Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing novel therapeutics to treat cancer and eye diseases.  
The company's major focus is developing VDAs that selectively
disrupt abnormal blood vessels associated with solid tumor
progression and visual impairment.  OXiGENE is dedicated to
leveraging its intellectual property and therapeutic development
expertise to bring life-extending and life-enhancing medicines to
patients.


PHILIP MORRIS: Ex-Smoker Wins $300 Million Verdict in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duff Wilson at The New York Times reports that legal experts
predict that thousands of tobacco lawsuits could gain momentum in
Florida after a Fort Lauderdale jury ordered Philip Morris USA to
pay $300 million to a former smoker who says she needs a lung
transplant.

If it survives an appeal, last week's verdict would be the
nation's largest award of damages to an individual suing a
tobacco company and could encourage thousands of plaintiffs who
have filed similar cases in Florida, according to Clifford E.
Douglas of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network.

A state supreme court ruling in Florida a few years ago made it
easier to pursue tobacco lawsuits there than in other states. But
the tobacco industry, which plans to appeal, appeared unfazed.
Tobacco companies have considered product liability suits as
little more than a cost of doing business since the seven biggest
companies agreed to pay $206 billion in a master settlement
agreement with 46 states in 1998.

Florida, despite being one of those states, had a major legal
ruling in 2006 that lowered a plaintiff's burden of proof against
a tobacco company.

The Florida Supreme Court rejected a class-action verdict and a
$145 billion award to plaintiffs, saying smokers would have to
sue individually. But the court said plaintiffs would not have to
prove some key elements that had been upheld in the first stage
of the class action: that nicotine is addictive, that smoking
causes diseases, and that cigarette companies fraudulently hid
those facts.

"That makes these cases in Florida unique," Mr. Douglas said.
Smokers in other states are still suing cigarette makers, he
said, but they have higher legal hurdles.

A spokesman for the Altria Group, the Virginia-based parent
company of Philip Morris USA, indicated it would appeal the
verdict and said the Florida rules were "fundamentally unfair and
unconstitutional."

Shares of Altria, which had been up more than 27 percent this
year, dropped 1.2 percent Friday, to $18.98.

Lucinda Naugle, the 61-year-old sister of a former Fort
Lauderdale mayor, was awarded $56 million in compensatory damages
and $244 million in punitive damages Thursday after a three-week
trial and three hours of jury deliberation in Broward County
Circuit Court.

Ms. Naugle, an office manager, had started smoking when she was
20 and quit when she was 45 years old, her lawyer, Robert W.
Kelley of Fort Lauderdale, said in a telephone interview Friday.
She now has severe emphysema and needs a lung transplant she
cannot afford, he said.

The jury assigned her 10 percent of the liability for her smoking
and disease, and Philip Morris 90 percent.

"She'll get paid, I would hope, within a year or two," Mr. Kelley
said. "The question is will she live long enough."

Mr. Kelley said about 25 more cases were lined up for trial in
Florida next year. In all, more than 9,000 people from the former
class action filed individual suits in various courts in Florida
against tobacco makers by January 2008, the deadline set by the
state Supreme Court.

About 4,000 of those cases were filed in federal court and have
been stayed, pending a review scheduled in January by the United
States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta.

Brendan J. McCormick, a spokesman for Altria, said Friday that
the company expected the federal appellate court to reject the
standards of proof set by the state Supreme Court. "What you have
is a defined number of cases in Florida with unique issues that
will ultimately be resolved on appeal," he said.

David J. Adelman, a tobacco analyst for Morgan Stanley, said the
Florida case and, separately, forthcoming class-action lawsuits
over light cigarette claims pose an "undeniable" increase in the
industry's legal risk "which had previously declined to an
unprecedented low point."

In an interview, Mr. Adelman noted that there were no jury trials
in cigarette cases all of last year, and that other states had
decertified class-action suits in ways more favorable to the
tobacco industry. Further, Mr. Adelman said, the major legal
threats to the industry were removed by the 1998 settlement with
states. And since then, the industry has fended off calls in
court and Congress for a huge disgorgement of its profits.

Even in light of the Florida verdict, Mr. Adelman said the
tobacco industry could afford several hundred million dollars a
year in legal losses if it had to. "That is a financially
manageable issue," he said.

Of more concern, he said in the interview and a note to
investors, is a coming round of cases claiming fraud and damages
from past marketing of so-called light cigarettes.

Those products have been shown to be no less harmful than regular
cigarettes because smokers inhale them more deeply. Congress, in
landmark tobacco legislation earlier this year, prohibited the
use of the terms "light," "low" or "mild" in all cigarette
labeling and marketing, effective June 22, 2010.

The first of the "light cigarette" class-action cases is
scheduled in Minnesota next October, followed by Missouri in
January 2011.


QUIZNOS: Secures Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quiznos, one of the nation's premier quick service restaurant
chains and pioneer of the toasted sandwich, disclosed that United
States District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois preliminarily
approved the settlement of class action lawsuits pending since
2006 in Colorado, Wisconsin and Illinois.  The suits alleged
violations of various state and federal laws in connection with
the sale and operation of Quiznos franchises.  

Judge Pallmeyer's ruling did not include any finding of fault by
any party.

Quiznos says it is pleased with the terms of the settlement.
"This settlement is very good news for Quiznos. Litigation is a
time-consuming process that shifts valuable time and resources
away from our most important focus -- great-tasting food,
franchise owner profitability and customer satisfaction," said
Quiznos spokesperson Ellen Kramer.

The settlement contains financial benefits for current and former
franchisees that elect to participate in the form of cash
refunds, food purchase discounts, and debt forgiveness. In
addition, amongst other things, the settlement agreement provides
for the creation, endorsement and funding of an independent
franchisee association; a retraining program for franchisees;
annual benchmark studies by an independent third party to review
costs of goods sold to franchisees; and an internal dispute
resolution process for franchisee disputes.

"We are very pleased with the settlement," said Justin M. Klein,
Esq., one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs.  "It is the
culmination of several years of contentious litigation and
reflects what we believe is a positive step for the future of the
Quiznos system," Mr. Klein added.

Marks & Klein, LLP is a law firm with offices in Red Bank, N.J.,
and New York City that focuses its practice in the area of
business and franchise law.  Marks & Klein, LLP and its lawyers
have been counsel in many prominent franchise disputes throughout
the United States.  For more information contact Justin M. Klein,
Esq., at (732) 747-7100 or by e-mail at justin@marksklein.com

Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk S.C. is a boutique litigation law firm
in Milwaukee, Wis., that handles "aggravated litigation(TM)"
(complex commercial, civil, fraud, and criminal matters)
throughout the United States.  For more information, go to
http://www.kravitlaw.com/or contact Stephen E. Kravit, Esq., at  
(414) 271-7100 or by e-mail at kravit@kravitlaw.com

Through its dedicated leadership, Quiznos continues to create
opportunities for greater franchise owner profitability.  Quiznos
has initiated several solutions to help Quiznos secure a strong
position in the current economic climate and the competitive
restaurant industry, including Quiznos' Lease Renegotiation
Program, Microloan Initiative, Flex Plan for product innovation
and The New Quiznos customer experience remodel.

Quiznos also continues to build on a legacy of chef-inspired
product innovation for greater customer satisfaction and further
franchise owner profitability.

Celebrating its 28th anniversary, Denver-based Quiznos is a
national chain designed for today's busy consumers who are
looking for a tasty, freshly prepared alternative to traditional
fast food restaurants. Using only premium quality ingredients,
Quiznos' more than 4,500 restaurants offer creative, chef-
inspired recipes for sandwiches, soups and salads.

In 2009, QSR Magazine ranked Quiznos #19 overall in its Top 50
Chains in system-wide sales.  In October 2007, Quiznos was
recognized for leading the QSR industry in wait time performance
by the Mystery Shopping Providers Association's (MSPA) 2007 Wait
Time Study.  In May 2007, Zagat's consumer surveys listed Quiznos
in the top 5 for Top Food, Top Facilities, Top Service and Top
Overall, ahead of its direct competitors.


RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
RHI Entertainment, Inc., faces a putative shareholder class
action alleging violations of federal securities laws by issuing
a registration statement in connection with its June 2008 initial
public offering, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company and two of its officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of federal securities laws by issuing a
registration statement in connection with the company's June 2008
initial public offering that contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted other facts necessary to make certain
statements not misleading.

The central allegation of the lawsuit is that the registration
statement overstated the number of made-for-television (MFT)
movies and mini-series the company expected to develop, produce
and distribute in 2008, while it failed to disclose that the
company would not be able to complete the expected number of MFT
movies and miniseries in 2008 due to the declining state of the
credit markets and other negative factors then impacting the
company's business.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and interest.

RHI Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.rhitv.com/-- develops,  
produces and distributes new made-for-television movies, mini-
series and other television programming worldwide.  The company
provides long-form television content, including domestic made-
for-television (MFT), movies and mini-series.  It also
selectively produces new episodic series programming for
television.  In addition to its development, production and
distribution of new content, it owns an library of existing long-
form television content, which the Company licenses primarily to
broadcast and cable networks worldwide.  RHI Entertainment, Inc's
business is comprised of the licensing of new film production and
the licensing of existing content from its film library in
territories worldwide.  Licensing rights in its film library
generate contractual accounts receivable.  The contractual
accounts receivable reflects license agreements it has entered
into with third parties for rights to its film content in future
periods.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Glancy Binkow Appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has been appointed as Co-Lead
Counsel in the securities class action against Skilled Healthcare
Group, Inc. (NYSE:SKH), certain of the Company's executive
officers, and certain underwriters of the Company's May 2007
initial public offering, in Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05416 (C.D Calif.) (Carter,
J.).

The Shepardson Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period
(May 14, 2007 through June 9, 2009), the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by
virtue of the Company's failure to disclose in the Registration
Statement for the Company's IPO and/or during the Class Period
that the amount of its income for the annual and quarterly
periods from January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2009 was
overstated. According to the Complaint, on June 9, 2009, the
value of Skilled Healthcare's stock declined significantly when
the Company revealed that its financial statements for the annual
and quarterly periods between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2009,
could no longer be relied upon and would have to be restated due
to errors relating to its accounting for reserves on its accounts
receivable.

If you purchased Skilled Healthcare's stock in the IPO or during
the Class Period, if you have any questions or comments
concerning this case, this announcement, or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, or if you would like an
update concerning the status of this case, would like to learn
more about the case, or if you have information and wish to
discuss these matters further, please contact:

          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

Other plaintiffs' lawyers of record are:
          Kenneth Joseph Catanzarite, Esq.
          CATANZARITE LAW OFFICES
          2331 West Lincoln Avenue
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Telephone: (714) 520-5544

               - and -  

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060

Skilled Healthcare and its officers and directors are represented
by:

          Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 540-1235

Banc of America Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities, LLC,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets Corpration, Scotia Capital (USA), Inc., and The Bear
Stearns Companies, Inc., are represented by:

          Bruce G. Vanyo, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 940-8800

               - and -  

          Marisa G. Westervelt, Esq.
          Richard H. Zelichov, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788-4400


SOUTHERN STAR: Plea in Decertification of "Price I" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a ruling by the District
Court, Stevens County, Kansas, denying class certification in the
matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
Case No. 99 C 30, remains pending, according to Southern Star
Central Corp.'s Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 28, 1999,
wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class
Action Petition alleges that the defendants have undermeasured
the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for
punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Southern Star Central Gas.

Despite a denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their original
motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs continue to seek
the certification of a class.

The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on that
motion on April 1, 2005.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' most recent
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on Oct.
2, 2009.

Headquartered in Owensboro, Ky., Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and
development opportunities.  The company operates through its
wholly owned operating subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Central).  Central is an interstate natural gas
transportation company that owns and operates a natural gas
pipeline system. The pipeline system operates in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. The
system serves customers in these seven states, including
metropolitan areas in Kansas and Missouri, its main market areas.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, Central's natural gas
pipeline system had a mainline delivery capacity of approximately
2.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day, and is
composed of approximately 6,000 miles of mainline and branch
transmission and storage pipelines.


SOUTHERN STAR: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Price II" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a ruling by the District
Court, Stevens County, Kansas, denying class certification in the
matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
Case No. 03 C 23, remains pending, according to Southern Star
Central Corp.'s Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

The putative class-action suit was filed on May 12, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants.

The plaintiffs in Price Litigation I sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,
as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral
argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on Oct.
2, 2009.

Headquartered in Owensboro, Ky., Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and
development opportunities.  The company operates through its
wholly owned operating subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Central).  Central is an interstate natural gas
transportation company that owns and operates a natural gas
pipeline system. The pipeline system operates in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. The
system serves customers in these seven states, including
metropolitan areas in Kansas and Missouri, its main market areas.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, Central's natural gas
pipeline system had a mainline delivery capacity of approximately
2.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day, and is
composed of approximately 6,000 miles of mainline and branch
transmission and storage pipelines.


ST. JUDE: Court Strikes Remaining Claims Seeking Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an
order striking any remaining claims seeking class action status
in a consolidated lawsuit against St. Jude Medical Inc. over its
Silzone-coated mechanical heart valves, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2009.

                    Consolidated Litigation

In October 2001, eight complaints were consolidated into one
class action case by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

The company requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit to review the District Court's initial class
certification orders and, in October 2005, the Eighth Circuit
issued a decision reversing these class certification rulings
and directed the District Court to undertake further
proceedings.

In October 2006, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify a nationwide consumer protection class
under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes and Private
Attorney General Act.

The company again requested the Eighth Circuit to review the
District Court's class certification orders and, in April 2008,
the Eighth Circuit again issued a decision reversing the October
2006 class certification rulings.  The Eighth Circuit again
returned the case to the District Court for continued
proceedings.

The plaintiffs have recently requested the District Court to
certify a new class.

On June 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order striking any
remaining claims seeking class action status.

As a result, the former class representative has only an
individual claim at the present time.

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Continues to Defended vs. Ex-Employees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Feb. 21, 2007 the company received a summons naming it,
several benefit plans and the plan administrators for those plans
as defendants in a class action, Evans et al. v. Sterling
Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a proposed class of
retired employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of its former
subsidiaries that the company sold in connection with its
emergence from bankruptcy in 2002.

The plaintiffs are alleging that the company was not permitted to
increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the
company and Cytec Industries Inc. and certain of its affiliates
governing the purchase of its former acrylic fibers business in
1997.

During its bankruptcy case, the company specifically rejected
this asset purchase agreement and the bankruptcy court approved
that rejection.  The plaintiffs are claiming that the company
violated the terms of the benefit plans and breached fiduciary
duties governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
and are seeking damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

Trial for this matter was for the second week of November 2009.

The suit is Evans et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No.
H-07-0625 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713-781-5200
          Fax: 713-781-2235
          E-mail: mweber@davis-davislaw.com


TELLABS INC: Continues to Defend "Makor Issues" Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class action
complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws,
according to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 2, 2009.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint styled Makor Issues &
Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs,
Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs, and Richard
Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs.

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of its current or former officers and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing
revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting
demand for our products, and reporting overstated revenue for the
fourth quarter 2000 in our financial statements.

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading our
securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public
information about us pertaining to these matters.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution,
damages and other relief.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint
in its entirety.

On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while
affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the
second consolidated amended class action complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion
and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, appealing
the dismissal.

The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan.
21, 2005.

On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming
in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court,
and remanding for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.

On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file
an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the
plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.

On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded
the case to the district court.

On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh
Circuit's decision.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh
Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the
remanded case.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering
to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

On Feb. 24, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is
ongoing.

Tellabs, Inc. -- http://www.tellabs.com/-- is engaged in  
designing and marketing equipment and services to communications
customers worldwide.  The company's products and services enable
its customers to deliver wireline and wireless voice, data and
video services to business and residential customers.  It sells
its products domestically and internationally through its field
sales force and distributors/partners.  The company's customers
are primarily communication services providers, including local
exchange carriers (LECs); national post, telephone and telegraph
(PTT) administrators, wireless service providers, multiple system
operators (MSOs), and competitive service providers (CSPs).  Its
customer base also includes distributors, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), system integrators and government agencies.  
The company operates in three segments: Broadband, Transport and
Services.


TELLABS INC: Seventh Circuit Dismisses Illinois "Brieger" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, upon an
Agreed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal on Sept. 11, 2009,
dismissed class action complaint against Tellabs, Inc., according
to the company's Nov. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2,
2009.

On April 5, 2006, a class action complaint styled Brieger v.
Tellabs, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, Michael Birck,
Richard Notebaert and current or former Tellabs employees who,
during the alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000, to July 1,
2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and Administrative
Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit Sharing and Savings Plan.

Thereafter, two similar complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things,
continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment
option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information
necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions
concerning the Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.

The complaints seek unspecified restitution, damages and other
relief.

On June 28, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions and on
Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in
the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class action
complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion and on
April 17, 2007, denied Tellabs' motion for leave to certify an
issue for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Federal Court of
Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted to
determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs
opposed class certification.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class.

The trial started on April 13, 2009, and ended on May 8, 2009.

On June 1, 2009, the court entered judgment in favor of Tellabs
on all claims.

The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2009.

The case was dismissed by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for
the Seventh Circuit upon an Agreed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
on Sept. 11, 2009.

Tellabs, Inc. -- http://www.tellabs.com/-- is engaged in  
designing and marketing equipment and services to communications
customers worldwide.  The company's products and services enable
its customers to deliver wireline and wireless voice, data and
video services to business and residential customers.  It sells
its products domestically and internationally through its field
sales force and distributors/partners.  The company's customers
are primarily communication services providers, including local
exchange carriers (LECs); national post, telephone and telegraph
(PTT) administrators, wireless service providers, multiple system
operators (MSOs), and competitive service providers (CSPs).  Its
customer base also includes distributors, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), system integrators and government agencies.  
The company operates in three segments: Broadband, Transport and
Services.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

HANSEN MEDICAL: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action lawsuit, civil
case number 09-cv-05367-HRL, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose division,
against Hansen Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNSN) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Hansen common stock between May 1, 2008, and October 18, 2009,
inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Specifically, the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company
improperly recognized revenue; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue and financial results were overstated during
the Class Period; (3) that the Company's financial results were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 19, 2009, Hansen announced that as a result of its
audit committee investigation it would restate its 2008 financial
statements and financial statements for the first and second
quarters of 2009 due to errors arising from "potential
irregularities outside of the accounting department." According
to the Company, Hansen identified systems for which revenue
should have been recognized in a later period than the period in
which it was recognized, and revenue on systems that should have
been reflected as deferred revenue on its balance sheet as of
June 30, 2009. As a result of this news, the price of Hansen
shares declined $0.31 per share, more than 9%, to close on
October 19, 2009, at $3.12 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits. For
more information about the firm, please visit the Firm's Web site
at http://www.murrayfrank.com/

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the Court, not later than December 22, 2009, to serve as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative
chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff
to be included in the class. If you purchased Hansen common stock
and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect
to these matters, please contact the Firm.


WESTERN COAL: Kim Orr Files Shareholder Complaint in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Orr Barristers P.C. has filed a $220 million class action on
behalf of investors of Western Coal Corporation, a publicly
traded company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol WTN).
In addition to Western Coal, certain executives of Western Coal
are also named as defendants, including President and Chief
Executive Officer John W. Hogg.  The class action alleges that
Western Coal and some of its executives violated several
securities laws and misled investors for personal financial gain.

In November 2007, Western Coal was carrying on its traditional
business of the acquisition, exploration and development of coal
licenses. At that time, its common shares were trading between
$1.40 and $2.40.

On November 14, 2007, the company released its financial results
for the second quarter of 2007. The news release also contained
forward looking statements including that the company did not
expect to have sufficient funds in the near term to meet its
financial obligations as they became due, citing as causes
current coal prices and the Canadian/US dollar exchange rate. As
a result, shares of Western Coal plunged from a high of $1.75 on
November 14 to a low of $0.47 on the following day.

Seven days later, on November 22, 2007 Western Coal issued a news
release announcing that it had entered into a financing agreement
with Audley European Opportunities Fund, an investment fund which
held approximately 29 per cent of Cambrian Mining PLC during the
Class Period.  Cambrian held approximately 42 per cent of Western
Coal during the Class Period.

From November 14, 2007 when the second quarter results were
released to November 22, 2007 when the company announced that a
financing agreement with Audley was in place, company insiders
purchased 111,000 shares of Western Coal.

The Statement of Claim in the class action alleges that the
defendants knew or ought to have known that releasing negative,
forward looking statements about the company's financial
viability would depress the share price of Western Coal.  Given
the pre-existing relationship with Audley, the Defendants knew or
ought to have known at the time of the November 14, 2007
announcement that Western Coal was going to obtain the financing
from Audley, which would allow them to meet their financial
obligations.  The suit alleges that the Defendants issued the
November 14, 2007 warning to artificially deflate Western Coal's
share price.

The proposed representative plaintiff, Wayne Gould of Alberta,
was struck by the timing of the announcements.  "I am very
pleased to be representing the shareholders who have suffered
unnecessary losses in this matter.  I knew that something was not
right when Western Canadian Coal essentially announced pending
bankruptcy and then days later announced $40,000,000 in funding.  
This financing would seem to be impossible to accomplish in such
a short period of time.  I encourage all other Western Canadian
Coal investors to join our claim."

The class action is being brought on behalf of all investors who
acquired or sold Western Coal's shares between November 14, 2007,
up to and including December 10, 2007.

For further information: regarding this lawsuit, please contact:

          Megan B. McPhee, Esq.
          KIM ORR BARRISTERS P.C.
          200 Front Street West, Suite 2300
          P.O. Box #45
          Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3K2
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 349-6574
          E-mail: mbm@kimorr.ca


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 97,400 Open Cases Ongoing v. EnPro at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2009, faced about 97,400
open asbestos cases, of which it was aware of about 5,300 (5.4
percent) that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among a
large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers. Among the products at issue in these actions are
industrial sealing products, including gaskets and packing
products.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid over US$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and
over US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of
plaintiffs alleging mesothelioma, about seven percent have been
claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other cancers, and about 90
percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging asbestosis,
pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of the
respiratory system.

About 3,300 new claims were filed against Company subsidiaries in
the first nine months of 2009, down from the 4,400 claims filed
in the first nine months of 2008.

Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial. Garlock won a defense verdict in two of five cases tried
to verdict thus far in 2009, three of the six cases tried to
verdict in 2008, and four of six cases tried to verdict in 2006
and 2007.

In the nine successful jury trials, the juries determined that
either Garlock's products were not defective, that Garlock was
not negligent, or that the claimant was not exposed to Garlock's
products. Garlock's share of the adverse verdicts resulting from
the other eight trials, most of which are being appealed, ranged
from US$0 to US$900,000 and averaged about US$390,000.

EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and
components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered
products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Commences 10 Trials During 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, began 10 asbestos-related trials during the first nine
months of 2009.

A South Carolina jury returned a defense verdict in favor of
Garlock in a mesothelioma lawsuit. In another South Carolina
mesothelioma case, the jury awarded a plaintiff US$700,000.
However, after set-offs, Garlock's share of this verdict was
US$0. Garlock received a jury verdict in its favor in a Kentucky
mesothelioma trial.

In another Kentucky mesothelioma case, the jury awarded the
plaintiff US$2.1 million. Garlock's share of this verdict was
US$525,000. Garlock has appealed. In a New York City trial, the
jury awarded a plaintiff US$8 million. Garlock's share of this
verdict was US$160,000. Garlock plans to appeal.

Lawsuits in Pennsylvania, New York and Florida settled during
trial before the juries had reached a verdict. In California,
Garlock received a dismissal in a mesothelioma case during trial.

EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and
components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered
products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has 6 Pending Garlock Appeals at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at Sept. 30, 2009, six Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC asbestos-related appeals were pending
from adverse verdicts totaling US$2.9 million, up from US$2.2
million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$1.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Garlock, which is a Company subsidiary, has historically enjoyed
success in most of its appeals. In June 2007, the New York Court
of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned an US$800,000
verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2004, granting a new
trial.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals,
in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that
was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The
case subsequently settled.

The Maryland Court of Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from a 2005
verdict in a mesothelioma case in Baltimore and Garlock paid that
verdict, with post-judgment interest, in 2006. In a separate
Baltimore case in 2006, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
denied Garlock's appeal from another 2005 verdict. The subsequent
appeal of that decision was also denied and Garlock paid that
verdict in 2007, also with interest.

In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company has been required to provide cash
collateral or letters of credit to secure the full amount of the
bonds, which can restrict the use of a significant amount of the
Company's cash for the periods of such appeals.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had about US$3.3 million of appeal
bonds secured by letters of credit.

EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and
components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered
products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has $67.2MM in New Settlement Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that new asbestos-related settlement
commitments in the first nine months of 2009 were US$67.2
million, up from US$53.9 million in the first nine months of
2008.

Company subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC settles and
disposes of actions on a regular basis. Garlock's historical
settlement strategy was to settle cases in advanced stages of
litigation. In 1999 and 2000, however, Garlock employed a more
aggressive settlement strategy.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999. In 2001,
Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and focused on
reducing settlement commitments.

As a result, Garlock reduced new settlement commitments from
US$180 million in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001 and US$86 million
in 2002. New settlement commitments have continued to decline
gradually and totaled US$71 million in 2008.

EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and
components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered
products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $252.7Mil Coverage at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, at Sept. 30, 2009, had available US$252.7 million of
insurance and trust coverage that the Company said it believes
will be available to cover current and future asbestos claims and
certain expense payments.

In addition, at Sept. 30, 2009, Garlock had classified US$10.2
million of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. Garlock
collected about US$100,000 from insolvent carriers in 2008, and
the Company said it believes that Garlock may collect some
additional amounts from insolvent carriers in the future. In
fact, Garlock has received US$1 million from insolvent carriers
during the first nine months of 2009.

Of the US$252.7 million of collectible insurance and trust
assets, the Company considers US$249.3 million (99 percent) to be
of high quality because (a) the insurance policies are written or
guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is
investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best rating is
excellent (A-) or better, or (b) the assets are in the form of
cash or liquid investments held in insurance trusts resulting
from commutation agreements.

The Company considers US$3.4 million (one percent) to be of
moderate quality because the insurance policies are written with
various London market carriers. Of the US$252.7 million, US$197.7
million is allocated to claims that have been paid by Garlock and
submitted to its insurance companies for reimbursement and the
remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims as
described later in this section.

Arrangements with Garlock's insurance carriers limit the amount
of insurance proceeds that Garlock is entitled to receive in any
one year. Based on these arrangements, which include settlement
agreements in place with most of the carriers involved, the
Company anticipates that its remaining solvent insurance will be
collected during the period 2009 - 2018 in the following annual
amounts: 2009 through 2010 - US$67 million per year (US$54.7
million was collected in the first nine months of 2009); 2011 -
US$40 million; 2012 and 2013 - US$25 million per year; 2014
through 2016 - US$20 million per year; and 2017 and 2018 - US$12
million per year.

The Company collected US$73 million of insurance in 2008. These
amounts are significantly lower than amounts collected in past
years.

EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and
components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered
products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Records $992Mil Carolinas Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation reserved US$992 million as of Sept. 30,
2009 (US$1.031 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008) for asbestos matters
of its Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC subsidiary.

The Company has claims for indemnification and medical cost
reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to
have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection
with construction and maintenance activities conducted by Duke
Energy Carolinas on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of
US$476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began
to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy
during the second quarter of 2008.

Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the
Company's third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy
limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.051
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of about US$984 million as of Sept 30, 2009
(US$1.032 billion) related to this policy are classified in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other
Assets and Receivables.

Company subsidiaries Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc. have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in
lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating
stations.

The Company has recorded reserves, including reserves related to
the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims,
of about US$1 billion as of Sept. 30, 2009 (US$1.1 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2008) for these proceedings and exposures.

The Company Duke Energy recognized about US$984 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009 (US$1.032 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008) of probable
insurance recoveries related to these losses.

Duke Energy Corporation has four million electricity customers
and about 520,000 gas customers in the U.S. South and Midwest.
The Company has 35,000 MW of electric generating capacity in the
Midwest and Carolinas. The Company is based in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be a defendant in asbestos
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an
injury for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits (the "Products").

However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products were
enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos
lawsuits. The Company also believes some of the potential
liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by indemnity
agreements with other parties.

Gardner Denver, Inc. makes compressors, such as reciprocating,
rotary screw, and sliding vane compressors, as well as positive
displacement and centrifugal blowers. The Company is based in
Quincy, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $19.1M Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation says its subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance
Holdings LLC, had gross asbestos and environmental reserves of
US$19.1 million at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$20.4 million
at Dec. 31, 2008.

AIHL had net A&E reserves of US$19 million at Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with US$20.3 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

AIHL's reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
included US$19.5 million of gross reserves and US$19.4 million of
net reserves at June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter Aug. 28,
2009)

These reserves were for various liability coverage related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corporation between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the property and casualty and
surety insurance business through its wholly owned subsidiary
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC. The Company is based in New
York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries.

Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products. A
small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number
of each in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of
industries.

During the first nine months of 2009, dismissals were initiated
on behalf of three plaintiffs and are in process; the Company was
dismissed from an additional 737 cases.

Tenneco Inc. manufactures automotive emission control and ride
control products and systems. The Company serves both original
equipment (OE) vehicle designers and manufacturers and the repair
and replacement markets, or aftermarket. The Company is based in
Lake Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright, Units Still Face Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation (or its subsidiaries) continues to
face a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to
asbestos.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and it said it believes adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs, manufactures, and overhauls
precision components and systems. It also provides products and
services to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding,
processing, oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad,
power generation, security, and metalworking industries. The
Company is based in Parsippany, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 1,128 Non-Maritime Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation says that, as of Oct. 2, 2009, there
were 1,128 pending non-maritime asbestos cases involving its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's latest quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Most of these cases involve plaintiffs alleging exposure to
asbestos-containing cable manufactured by the Company's
predecessors. In addition to its subsidiaries, numerous other
wire and cable manufacturers have been named as defendants in
these cases.

The subsidiaries have also been named, along with numerous other
product manufacturers, as defendants in 33,550 suits in which
plaintiffs alleged that they suffered an asbestos-related injury
while working in the maritime industry. These cases are referred
to as MARDOC cases and are managed under the supervision of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On May 1, 1996, the District Court ordered that all pending
MARDOC cases be administratively dismissed without prejudice and
the cases cannot be reinstated, except in certain circumstances
involving specific proof of injury.

While the cumulative average settlement through Oct. 2, 2009 has
been about US$475 per case, the average settlement paid to
resolve litigation has increased significantly above that amount,
reaching US$5,900 per case for litigation settled in 2009, as the
mix of cases currently being listed for trial in state courts and
those which may be listed in the future, which may need to be
resolved, generally involve more serious asbestos related
injuries.

General Cable Corporation conducts its operations through three
geographic operating segments: North America, Europe and North
Africa, and Rest of World (ROW). These segments develop, design,
manufacture, market, and distribute copper, aluminum, and fiber
optic communication, electric utility and electrical
infrastructure wire and cable products. The Company is based in
Highland Heights, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&F Still Incurs No Material Amount at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2009, has not incurred and
does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-
related claims not subject certain arrangements (Remaining
Claims).

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC (together with its predecessors in
interest, "Pneumo Abex"). Substantially all of these contingent
claims are the financial responsibility of third parties and
include various environmental and asbestos-related claims.

As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not
expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to these
matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses, all
of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988 sale,
those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-containing
friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along
with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant
in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to
exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially all
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August
1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement.

The Transfer Agreement requires MCGI to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer.
Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded
when it receives amounts under related indemnification and
insurance agreements.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products.

The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other
coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement, all
of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims
are managed and paid by others.

M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company that conducts its
operations through its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries,
Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide. The Company's
businesses are organized along four business segments: Harland
Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and Licorice
Products. The Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Williams' Bid for Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, denied Howard Williams' Motion for
Reconsideration, in a suit involving asbestos filed against the
U.S. Government and FCI-Milan.

The case is styled Howard V. Williams, Antonial Randle, Roy
Robinson, David Green, Shawn Mcdew, and Charles Petties,
Plaintiffs v. United States Government and FCI Milan, Defendants.

District Judge Patrick J. Duggan entered judgment in Case No.
2:09-cv-12707 on Sept. 16, 2009.

Mr. Williams, a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Milan, Mich. (FCI-Milan) filed a pro
se civil rights complaint.

In his complaint, Mr. Williams alleged that he suffered from
health problems, resulting from asbestos exposure related to his
prison job. He named as defendants the United States of America
and FCI-Milan.

Mr. Williams sought reconsideration on the ground that the Court
erred in construing his complaint as attempting to raise the
claims of five additional plaintiffs. He argued that he merely
intended to alert the Court that additional plaintiffs might be
filing similar claims.

The Court denied Mr. Williams' Motion for Reconsideration.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Board Ruling in Brown Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the April
11, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Gerald Brown's claims for entitlement to service connection for
otitis externa, sinusitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, and right shoulder tendonitis.

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

Judge Mary Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-1304 on Sept.
21, 2009.

Mr. Brown served honorably in the U.S. Coast Guard from June 6,
1973 to June 13, 1977 with no service in Vietnam. In December
2003, he filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for
sinusitis, tendonitis, diabetes, glaucoma, and hypertension.

In his application, Mr. Brown indicated that he had been exposed
to Agent Orange or other herbicides, asbestos, mustard gas, and
ionizing radiation. He claimed that his exposure to Agent Orange
and asbestos resulted in his sinusitis; that his exposure to
asbestos also resulted in his hypertension; that his exposure to
mustard gas resulted in his tendonitis and diabetes; and that his
exposure to ionizing radiation resulted in his glaucoma.

In November 2006, Mr. Brown underwent VA examinations. The
general medical examination reported the following problems:
Adult onset diabetes, essential hypertension, chronic otitis
externa, sinusitis, tendonitis, and glaucoma.

In its April 11, 2008, decision, the Board denied Mr. Brown's
claims for entitlement to service connection for otitis externa,
sinusitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and right
shoulder tendonitis.

The portions of the April 11, 2008 Board decision that denied Mr.
Brown's claims for entitlement to service connection for otitis
externa, sinusitis, and right shoulder tendonitis were vacated,
and the matters were remanded to the Board for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.

The portions of the Board's decision that denied Mr. Brown's
claims for entitlement to service connection for diabetes and
hypertension were affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Pharmacia's Bid in Catania Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, denied
Pharmacia Corp.'s (f/k/a Lion Oil Co.) motion for summary
judgment, in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Michael Catania on
behalf of Barbara Catania.

The case is styled Michael Catania, et al. v. Anco Insulations,
Inc., et al.

District Judge James J. Brady entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 05-1418-JJB on Sept. 18, 2009.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Catania was exposed to asbestos from
Lion Oil products brought home on the clothes of her uncles.
Pharmacia argued that that there was no evidence that Mrs.
Catania had any exposure to Pharmacia's products.

Furthermore, Pharmacia argued that the deposition of Victor Reno
and certain articles supporting Mrs. Catania's claims were
inadmissible.

This Court found that plaintiffs had shown that there was a
genuine issue for trial regarding whether Ms. Catania was exposed
to asbestos fibers from Pharmacia's products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, Unit Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and its former subsidiary,
NATCO Limited Partnership, continue to face pending asbestos-
related lawsuits.

The Company and NATCO are named as defendants in 264 lawsuits,
the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In the
second quarter of 2009, one additional lawsuit was filed against
the Company.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury,
primarily fibrosis or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on
the Company's vessels. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in
the Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District
of Michigan.

All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the
inactive docket.

Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a
future date without being barred by the statute of limitations.
However, to date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company
have sought reinstatement.

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services
in the United States. The Company is based in Oak Brook, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling, Units Still Facing Miss. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries are still
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit
Courts of the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
1965 and 1986. The complaints name as defendants numerous other
companies that are not affiliated with the Company, including
companies that allegedly manufactured drilling-related products
containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in
which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of
action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine which plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of
the Company. To date, 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company
or one of its affiliates as a defendant.

No amounts were accrued at Sept. 30, 2009.

Parker Drilling Company owns 28 land rigs and 17 U.S.-based barge
drilling and workover rigs. The Company drills worldwide (in nine
countries in 2008) and has worked in 54 countries since its
founding. The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Group, BGE Face 499 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 499 individuals who were never employees of Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. or Baltimore Gas Electric Company (BGE) have
pending asbestos claims each seeking several million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages.

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

Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority
has been resolved for amounts that were not material to the
Company's financial results.

Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy company that
conducts its business through various subsidiaries including a
merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
(BGE). The Company is based in Baltimore.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Inc. Cites Pneumo Abex Obligation
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas, Inc. has certain indemnification obligations
related to product liability and toxic tort claims that might
emanate out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex Corporation.

Other companies not owned by or associated with the Company also
are responsible to Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all
asbestos product liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after
a certain date in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by
the Company.

PepsiAmericas, Inc. sells various brands that it bottles under
licenses from PepsiCo, Inc. or PepsiCo joint ventures, which
accounted for about 80 percent of the Company's total net sales
in fiscal year 2008. The Company accounts for about 19 percent of
all PepsiCo beverage products sold in the United States. The
Company is based in Minneapolis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Facing Product Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. and multiple other defendants continue to face
asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer
owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these
claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against
liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no
liability for such claims.

The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also
tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers for the
companies from which the Company acquired the businesses.

Magnetek, Inc. provides digital power control systems that are
used to control motion and power primarily in material handling,
elevator and energy delivery applications. The Company is based
in Menomonee Falls, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Still Subject to Coverage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited continues to be subject to litigation and
arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of business,
including litigation generally related to the scope of coverage
with respect to asbestos and environmental claims.

Enstar Group Limited was formed in August 2001 to acquire and
manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off, and to
provide management, consulting and other services to the
insurance and reinsurance industry. The Company is based in
Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.72M Net Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net loss and loss adjustment expense
reserves for its asbestos exposures were US$16,720,000 during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$16,683,000
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for its asbestos
exposures were US$16,789,000 for the six months ended June 30,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 11, 2009)

The Company's gross loss and LAE reserves for its asbestos
exposures were US$21,507,000 during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2009, compared with US$21,774,000 during the year ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at Sept. 30, 2009 are for:

-- One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits
   exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in
   the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being
   paid over several years (two other large settled claims were
   fully paid in 2007);

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
   distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
   incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
   products that contained asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
   over time.

Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.

Ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$7.8 million
at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$8.9 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
Of the amounts at Sept. 30, 2009, US$4.5 million was due from
Equitas.

The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international insurance holding
company focusing on specialty products for niches within the
overall property/casualty insurance market. Its largest product
line and most long-standing area of specialization is ocean
marine insurance. The Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Has 104 Pending Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indiana Power & Light
Company (IPL), was a defendant in 104 pending asbestos lawsuits
as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 114 lawsuits as of Dec. 31,
2008.

These lawsuits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a
"premises defendant" meaning that IPL did not mine, manufacture,
distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.

These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for
contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance
which may cover some portions of these claims.

Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., a subsidiary of The AES Corporation,
has businesses that consist of the generation, transmission,
distribution and sale of electric energy conducted through its
principal subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company. The
Company is based in Indianapolis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CH Energy Faces 1,187 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, of the 3,317 asbestos cases
brought against its subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation, about 1,187 remain pending as of Sept. 30, 2009.

As of June 30, 2009, Central Hudson faced 1,183 pending asbestos
cases. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2009)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978 have
been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson,
and Central Hudson has settled 152 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the
ultimate liability relating to these cases.

CH Energy Group, Inc.'s Central Hudson Gas & Electric unit
provides electricity to about 300,000 electric and 74,000 natural
gas customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson
River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a
2,600-square-mile service territory that extends from New York to
Albany. The Company is based in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc. continues to be involved in litigation
resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products
containing asbestos by certain of the Company's predecessors or
acquired companies.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

VWR Funding, Inc. provides distribution services. Products
include chemicals, glassware, equipment, instruments, protective
clothing, production supplies and other assorted laboratory
products. The Company is based in West Chester, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Records 430 Damage Claims at Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Oct. 30, 2009, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
Property Damage Claims subject to a March 31, 2003 bar date
remain outstanding.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 375 of those claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$109 million.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits seek to have
the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001
Bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were entered
in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases settled
following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company).

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1
million. About 207 property damage cases were settled for a total
of US$696.8 million and 16 cases remain outstanding (including
the one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI (Zonolite Attic
Insulation) and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI). About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and disposal of all
such insulation.

The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes
and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars
per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have
been stayed.

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: Grace Still Involved in Personal Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be involved in asbestos personal
injury claims, in which the claimants allege adverse health
effects from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
Personal Injury Claims were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that the
Company's products were not involved). About 55,489 lawsuits
involving about 163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through
settlements and judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI claims for personal injury were
pending against the Company. The Company said it believes that a
substantial number of additional PI Claims would have been
received between the Filing Date and Sept. 30, 2009 had such PI
Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

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: Grace Records $923M Excess Coverage at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2009, there remains
about US$923 million of excess coverage from 53 presently solvent
insurers.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid
and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$440 million.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers
with respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage. Those
policies are at layers of coverage that have not yet been
triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the Prior
Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of
US$1.7 billion. In addition, the Company has about US$253 million
of excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance
carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with an underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance
coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of US$90 million
directly to an escrow account in respect of claims for which the
Company was provided coverage under the affected policies. The
escrow account balance at Sept. 30, 2009 was about US$97.3
million, including interest earned on the account.

The settlement agreement, as amended in July 2009, provides that:
unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31,
2013, at the option of the underwriter, exercisable at any time
prior to April 30, 2014, the escrow amount with interest must be
returned to the underwriter; funds in the escrow account will be
distributed from the account to the PI Trust as set forth in the
Joint Plan; 52 percent of the interest accrued on the settlement
amount as of March 31, 2009 will be transferred to an agent of
the underwriter; and the underwriter has certain indemnification
rights against the Company and the PI Trust with respect to
certain claims.

In October 2009, in compliance with the settlement agreement, the
Company transferred about US$3.7 million of the accrued interest
to an agent of the underwriter.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage. The Company further
estimates that, assuming the resolution value of asbestos-related
claims is equal to the recorded liability of US$1.7 billion
(which should fund claim payments in excess of US$2 billion), it
should be entitled to about US$500 million of insurance recovery.

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: Grace Cites $52.2M Libby Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$52.2 million at Sept.
30, 2009 and US$48.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008, excluding
interest.

During 2008, the Company paid US$250 million plus accrued
interest of about US$2 million under an agreement (the "EPA Cost
Recovery Agreement"), between the Company and the U.S. Department
of Justice to settle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
cost recovery claims for all past and future remediation costs
with respect to the Company's former Libby operations, except for
those relating to the Company-owned Libby vermiculite mine.

The estimated obligation as of each date does not include the
cost to remediate the Company-owned Libby vermiculite mine, which
is not currently estimable.

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: Grace Still Facing DEP's Lawsuit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be party to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection's (NJDEP) asbestos-related
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court foe the District of New
Jersey.

In 2005, the NJDEP filed a lawsuit against the Company and two
former employees, which was removed at the Company's request to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case
is styled N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W. R. Grace &
Co. et al.

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and
false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the NJDEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act. The Company submitted the report, which was
prepared by an independent environmental consultant, in
connection with the closing of the Company's former vermiculite
expansion plant in Hamilton Township, N.J. In 2005, the
Bankruptcy Court stayed this lawsuit.

In April 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling stating that
the lawsuit filed by the NJDEP was in violation of the automatic
stay and enjoining further pursuit of all claims in the lawsuit.
In March 2009, the Delaware District Court upheld the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling.

In April 2009, the NJDEP appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which appeal remains pending.
To the extent this lawsuit proceeds against the two former Grace
employees, the Company may have an indemnification obligation.


In April 2007, New Jersey filed a motion for leave to file a late
proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million with respect to
substantially the same claims set forth in the lawsuit described
in the preceding paragraph. In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court
denied this motion and the Delaware District Court affirmed this
ruling on appeal in March 2008. In April 2008, New Jersey
appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit, which appeal remains
pending.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the Debtors, the two former employees and the
NJDEP entered into a stipulation in the amount of US$1 million
that, subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court, will resolve
the NJDEP's claims and terminate all of the litigation, including
the appeals pending in the Third Circuit.

A motion to approve the stipulation is pending before the
Bankruptcy Court.

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: 8,945 Claims Pending Against Albany at Oct. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. faced 8,945 asbestos claims as of Oct.
30, 2009, 16,060 claims as of July 23, 2009, 16,818 claims as of
May 1, 2009, and 17,854 claims as of Feb. 6, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company, which
produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and
used in certain paper mills.

As of Oct. 30, 2009, about 4,288 of the claims pending against
the Company were pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 4,217
are in federal court, either through removal or original
jurisdiction, and have been assigned to the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) Court. This compares with to 10,946 Mississippi
claims, which were pending at the MDL as of May 1, 2009.

As of Oct. 30, 2009, the remaining 4,657 claims pending against
the Company were pending in states other than Mississippi.

As of Oct. 30, 2009, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 31,528 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,846,000. Of this amount,
US$6,801,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The
Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used
in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers
for the remainder. It markets these products to paper mills
through a direct sales staff. The Company is based in Albany,
N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7,907 Claims Ongoing Against Brandon at Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., faced 7,907 asbestos claims as of Oct. 30, 2009, 8,139
claims as of July 23, 2009, 8,604 claims as of May 1, 2009, and
8,607 claims as of Feb. 6, 2009.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of
the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which the Company is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Geschmay. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.
It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of Oct. 30, 2009, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 9,671 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The
remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by
Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

As of Oct. 30, 2009, 6,821 (or about 86 percent) of the claims
pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The
Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used
in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers
for the remainder. It markets these products to paper mills
through a direct sales staff. The Company is based in Albany,
N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Named in Mt. Vernon Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., in some asbestos cases, is named both
as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The
Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used
in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers
for the remainder. It markets these products to paper mills
through a direct sales staff. The Company is based in Albany,
N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Accrues $1.5Mil ARO at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2009 and
Dec. 31, 2008, the amount included in accounts payable and other
accrued liabilities on its balance sheets was US$1.5 million, and
the equivalent asset is recorded at US$1.3 million, net of
accumulated depreciation.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations
as required by current accounting guidance. The amount of asset
retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated asbestos
removal costs at the end of the economic life of properties that
were built before 1984.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT) that owns data centers, Internet and data communications
hubs, and technology office and manufacturing properties. The
Company is based in San Francisco.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boss Holdings Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to be a defendant in several
lawsuits alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves
sold by one of its predecessors-in-interest.

These actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's
products liability insurers, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
10, 2009.

Boss Holdings, Inc.'s primary operating subsidiary is Boss
Manufacturing Company. The Company operates primarily in the work
gloves and protective wear business segment. The Company also
conducts operations in the pet supplies business segment and
promotional and specialty products segments. The Company is based
in Kewanee, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Chem. Involved in Cases From Belpre Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kraton Polymers LLC says that Shell Chemicals is named a party in
lawsuits alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre,
Ohio, facility.

Under the sale agreements between Shell Chemicals and the Company
relating to the separation from Shell Chemicals in 2001, Shell
Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain
liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims against
the Company by a third party relating to matters arising prior to
the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that the Company has acquired.

In the event the Company is named as party to any of these
claims, it would be indemnified by Shell Chemicals. However, as
of Nov. 12, 2009, the Company has not been named as a party in
any of these claims.

Kraton Polymers LLC produces styrenic block copolymers (SBCs),
specialty chemical products whose chemistry the Company pioneered
over 40 years ago. The Company operates in the United States,
Germany, France, The Netherlands, Brazil and Japan. The Company
is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No New Development in Scott Suit v. Chase Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation says that, as of October 2009, there have been
no new developments in an asbestos lawsuit styled Marie Lou
Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T. Scott v. A-Best
Products, et al. (No. 312901).

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in the personal injury
lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from
exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The
case was styled in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the
Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in
September 2005. The trial had initially been scheduled to begin
on April 30, 2007.

However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date has
been set. As of October 2009, there have been no new developments
as this Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the
Company.

Chase Corporation manufactures tapes, laminates, sealants, and
coatings for high reliability applications. The Company also
provides contract assembly services for the electronics industry.
The Company is based in Bridgewater, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Injury Action v. Chase Filed on June 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation was named as one of the defendants in a
complaint filed on June 25, 2009, in an asbestos lawsuit
captioned Lois Jansen, Individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of Thomas Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al. (No:
09-CV-6248).

The case was filed in the Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit
Court. The plaintiff alleges that her husband suffered and died
from malignant mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos
in his workplace.

The plaintiff has sued seven alleged manufacturers or
distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston
Laboratories (formerly an independent company and now a division
of the Company.

The Company has filed an answer to the claim denying the material
allegations in the complaint. The parties are currently engaged
in discovery.

Chase Corporation manufactures tapes, laminates, sealants, and
coatings for high reliability applications. The Company also
provides contract assembly services for the electronics industry.
The Company is based in Bridgewater, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Facing 10,900 Lawsuits at Sept. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company's subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc.,
faced about 10,900 pending asbestos liability cases as of Sept.
25, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 20, 2009.

Mallinckrodt faced about 10,700 pending asbestos liability cases
as of June 26, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Most
of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally
on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating
asbestos.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.

The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal
injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to
products containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, a large percentage of these claims were never
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts.

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells
healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. The
Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 27 New Actions Filed During Nov. 2-6 in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Nov. 2, 2009 through Nov. 6, 2009, about 27
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-1188) Bob D. Berlin of Minnesota, a plumber,
   sheet metal worker, electrician and laborer, claims lung
   cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and
   Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Berlin.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1165) David and Kathleen Black of New York
   claim Mr. Black developed mesothelioma after working as a
   painter and drywaller, as a mechanic and infantryman at St.
   Leonard Wood, as an accident investigator for the U.S. Army
   and as a shadetree mechanic. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori,
   Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., will represent the
   Blacks.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1167) Elroy Christiansen of Wisconsin, an
   electrician, claims lung cancer. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Christiansen.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1172) Richard Clemons of Virginia, a painter,
   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. Clemons.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1195) Janet Elrod claims the deceased Betty R.
   Walker developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos
   fibers through her family member, William Walker, who worked
   as an electrician. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertso, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Ms. Elrod.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1178) Mark and Margaret Garbry of New York
   claim Mr. Garbry developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   drop hammer operator, as a part-time EMT worker and as a
   shadetree mechanic. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Garbrys.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1192) Henry C. Gayden of Kentucky, a laborer,
   claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Gayden.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1193) Robert N. Gitzen of Pennsylvania, a
   laborer and steelworker, 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. Gitzen.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1191) Darwin B. Hoover of Louisiana, a welder
   and laborer, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry
   J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Anglides and Barnerd of East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Hoover.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1175) Betty Huff of Missouri claims her
   deceased husband, J.L. Huff, developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a maintenance worker, millwright and foreman at
   Masonite and as an insulator at Ingalls Shipbuilding. Randy
   L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Huff.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1183) Robert M. and Margatette Law of Virginia
   claim Mr. Law developed mesothelioma after his work with
   Alcoa and as a member of the U.S. Air Force. Elizabeth V.
   Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Laws.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1173) Jeana Manolescu of New York claims she
   developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos fibers
   through her family member, Vincent Egresits, who worked as a
   laborer, electrician 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. Manolescu.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1187) Arval R. Mason of Arkansas, a laborer,
   claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Mason.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1184) Joseph Maurelli Jr. of Colorado, a
   facilities engineer, an engineer, a project manager and a
   reactor operator, claims pleural mesothelioma. G. Michael
   Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Maurelli.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1174) Anthony J. McDonald of Nevada, a marine,
   tree cutter, truck driver and meat cutter, claims
   mesothelioma. 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. McDonald.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1186) James Moroney of Wisconsin, a delivery
   man, mechanic, laborer, millwright and electrician, claims
   pleural mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill
   Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Moroney.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1197) Ferris Murphy of Nevada claims her
   deceased husband, Laurence S. Murphy, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a plumber 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. Murphy.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1166) Aileen Noll of Wisconsin claims her
   deceased father, William Noll, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a mechanic in the U.S. Army, as a laborer, as a
   drywaller and general residential construction worker and as
   a shadetree mechanic. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian
   and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Ms.
   Noll.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1171) Keith Pace of Nevada claims his deceased
   father, Alfred Pace, developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a laborer and shipwright. 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. Pace.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1164) Melvin and Darlene Peterson of Utah
   claim Mr. Peterson developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   car salesman at Bosse Motors, as a bricklayer at Powell
   College, as a laborer at Standard Refinery, as a car salesman
   at Capital Chevrolet Company, as a partner in Peterson
   Brothers Construction Company, as a partner in Peterson
   Trailer and Auto Sales, as the owner and manager of Peterson
   Auto Sales and as a safety inspector and car repairman at
   Pete's Texaco. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq.,
   of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Petersons.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1194) Dale Rhine of Illinois, a laborer,
   concrete finisher, pipefitter helper and engineer, claims
   asbestosis. 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. Rhine.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1189) Antonio Rivas of Washington, a laborer
   and welder, claims colon 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. Rivas.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1196) Gala Seay of North Carolina, a laborer,
   coal miner 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 Gala Seay.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1190) Penn Smith of Utah, an electrician at
   various locations, 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 Penn Smith.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1179) Laura Thompson of Nevada, a dental
   assistant, office manager, bookkeeper and office assistant,
   claims mesothelioma. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., and W. Brent
   Copple, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Thompson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1182) Frances Trillet of Louisiana, a dental
   assistant, claims mesothelioma. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq.,
   and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton,
   Ill., will represent Ms. Trillet.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1168) Angela Van Vranken of Tennessee claims
   her deceased mother, Pauline Mahoney, developed mesothelioma
   after her work as an assembly line worker, waitress and
   homemaker. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., and Sean M. Keane, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Van Vranken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dees Case v. 100 Firms Filed on Nov. 19 in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Dees and Mary Guidroz, a couple from Vidor, Tex., on Nov.
19, 2009, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 100 defendant
corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Dees and Ms. Guidroz sued AMF Incorporated, along with 99
other defendants. A few of the defendants listed in the suit
include BP, A.W. Chesterton Company and Chevron Corporation.

The suit says the plaintiff was a truck driver and regularly
visited the defendants' premises. The suit does not specify which
plaintiff was the truck driver.

However, medical records attached to the suit say Mr. Dees, a
smoker, had occupational asbestos exposure from 1950 to 1980 and
was diagnosed with lung cancer in April 2007.

The suit goes on to allege that the defendants failed to test
asbestos products and adequately warn workers of the dangers of
asbestos. The plaintiffs seek exemplary damages.

Glen Morgan, Esq., of Reaud, Morgan & Quinn represents the
plaintiffs.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial District, will preside over Case
No. A185-363.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cunningham Lawsuit v. Chevron Filed on Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Lou Cunningham, on behalf of her late husband Billy
Cunningham, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Chevron USA
on Nov. 20, 2009 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde, Esq., filed the personal
injury lawsuit on Mrs. Cunningham's behalf.

The suit said, "During Cunningham's employment with Gulf Oil, he
used and was exposed to toxic materials including asbestos dust
and/or fibers. As a result of such exposure, he developed an
asbestos-related disease, mesothelioma, for which he died a
painful and terrible death on Feb. 11, 2009."

Mrs. Cunningham is suing for exemplary damages and seeks "to
recover from the defendant an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of this Court. Further, plaintiff seeks a
claim for prejudgment interest for all elements allowed them,"
the suit says.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. E185-373.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Boilermaker Awarded $3Mil in Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC announces that it has
obtained over US$3 million dollars in a settlement award on
behalf of a local union boilermaker for injuries resulting from
exposure to asbestos on the job, according to a Lipsitz &
Ponterio press release dated Nov. 19, 2009.

Earl W. Tredinnick, III, of Elma, N.Y., who worked as a Local 7
Union Boilermaker between 1967 and 2002 developed mesothelioma in
the fall of 2008, and sued various companies responsible for
various asbestos-containing products.

Due to the confidential nature of this settlement, the
Tredinnicks are not at liberty to disclose the names of the
settling parties or the amounts contributed by each of these
companies to the award.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John P. Lane, serving as a judicial
hearing officer, presided over this case.

The 61-year-old Mr. Tredinnick is married with three children and
six grand-children. He is a third generation boilermaker who
worked at large industrial sites throughout the area, including
Niagara Mohawk's Huntley and Dunkirk steam stations, Ashland Oil,
Hooker Chemical, Bethlehem Steel and DuPont in Niagara Falls.

The case settled two days after a jury was selected and just
before Mr. Tredinnick's lawyers Keith R. Vona, Esq., and Michael
A. Ponterio, Esq., of the law firm Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC were
due to make opening statements.

Mr. Tredinnick claims that his mesothelioma was caused by
exposure to equipment, including pipes, valves and boilers
covered with exterior insulation. He was present and participated
in numerous shut-downs during which asbestos-containing
insulation materials were removed and replaced. This procedure
gives rise to a great deal of airborne asbestos contamination.

This case (Index No. I2008-10509) was filed in the New York
Supreme Court for the County of Erie.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newark Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 62-year-old Anthony Stone, a
construction worker from Newark, Nottinghamshire, England, was
linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post
reports.

Mr. Stone, from Gainsborough Road, Langford, near Newark, died at
home on Nov. 15, 2009. He was exposed to asbestos when working in
the construction industry 40 years ago. Asbestos had also been in
the ceiling of a block of flats he had lived in.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Lagger's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 61-year-old Joseph Kehoe, a
former lagger, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the
Evening Post reports.

Mr. Kehow, of Diseworth Grove, The Meadows, died on Nov. 1, 2009
of heart failure caused by mesothelioma. A Nov. 17, 2009 inquest
at Nottingham Coroner's Court heard Mr. Kehoe worked as a lagger
for installation companies.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 New Suits Filed During Nov. 9-14 in Madison
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Nov. 9, 2009 through Nov. 13, 2009, about 14
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-1222) Donald W. Armstrong of North Carolina
   claims his deceased father, Earl A. Armstrong, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as an electrician. Myles L.
   Epperson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Armstrong.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1221) Frank Brown of Texas, a printer, claims
   pleural mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill
   Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Brown.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1210) Leo Hampton Collins Jr. and Hazel Louann
   Collins of South Carolina claim Mr. Collins developed lung
   cancer after his work as a pipefitter and shipfitter and as a
   laborer and maintenance man. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Collinses.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1203) Paul Dwayne and Mina Dickerson of
   Illinois claim Mr. Dickerson developed lung cancer after his
   work as a mechanic, carpenter and glazier. Amy E. Garrett,
   Esq., and Sean M. Keane, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent the
   Dickersons.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1212) Toni Gibson-Williams and Elmore Williams
   Jr. of Ohio claim Mrs. Williams developed mesothelioma after
   her work as a security guard, assembly line worker, waitress
   and nurse assistant. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent the Williams couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1223) Bonnie Glass of Alabama claims her
   deceased husband, William G. Glass, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a painter. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mrs. Glass.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1217) Reford McGuire of Ohio, a transmission
   assembler and brake packer, claims mesothelioma. Jackalyn A.
   Olinger, Esq., T. Barton French, Esq., and Nate Mudd, Esq.,
   of French and Mudd in St. Louis, will represent Mr. McGuire.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1219) Victor Nottoli of Oklahoma, a clerk,
   mail carrier and assembler, claims mesothelioma. G. Michael
   Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder and
   Gianaris in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Nottoli.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1214) Emma J. Oldham of Missouri claims
   mesothelioma. She was exposed to asbestos fibers through her
   husband, who worked as a boilermaker and pipefitter. Andrew
   O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
   Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J.
   FitzGerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will
   represent Mrs. Oldham.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1208) Leon Roberson of Wisconsin, an assembly
   line worker, crane operator, truck driver, contractor and bar
   owner, claims pleural mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq.,
   and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Roberson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1211) Tonnie Louise Teague of Alabama claims
   her deceased husband, Wallace Teague, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a laborer for the railroad, as a lineman at
   Miller Weaver Cable Company and as a laborer at Ben Hey and
   Company. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq.,
   of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mrs. Teague.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1205) Udeyne Weber of Illinois claims her
   deceased husband, Louis Weber, developed lung cancer after
   his work as a pipefitter, laborer and painter. Shane F.
   Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Weber.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1213) Joseph Whitehead of Indiana, a laborer
   and janitor, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Whitehead.

-- (Case No. 09-L-1220) Dwight Wood Jr. of Indiana, a stock boy,
   meat apprentice, power inspector, electrician, power station
   laborer and turbine operator, claims lung cancer. G. Michael
   Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Wood.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marlborough Plumber's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Trowbridge Town Hall heard that the death of
72-year-old plumber, John Middleton, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, ContractorsCompare.com reports.

ThisisWiltshire.co.uk reported that Mr. Middleton died in August
2009 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. At the inquest,
coroner David Ridley said that Mr. Middleton had left school at
the age of 16 and worked for a number of firms in the area as a
plumber.

Mr. Ridley added, "Part of his job would be stripping down
boilers and pipes, which would have been lagged with asbestos. In
the 1950s and 1960s the dangers of asbestos were not widely known
and no protective equipment was issued."

Mr. Ridley added that he had no hesitation in finding that Mr.
Middleton died from an industrial disease brought on by his
contact with asbestos.

A claim for compensation will now be made by Mr. Middleton's
solicitors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered at Three Seoul Subway Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos traces were found in three Seoul, Korea, subway
stations: Gyeongbok Palace Station on Subway Line 3 and the
Mullae and Bangbae stations on Line 2, The Korea Times reports.

According to the Ban Asbestos Network Korea (BANK) on Nov. 23,
2009, the traces were detected on gloves, masks and other gear
and tools used for removing asbestos, which are stored near the
platform of Gyeongbok Palace Station, on Nov. 12, 2009.

BANK claimed that asbestos dust from the gear and tools may have
been scattered around the station, putting passengers at risk.

In Mullae Station, dust collected from audio speakers and ceiling
screens were also found to contain two kinds of the substance:
chrysotile and tremolite asbestos. Pieces of concrete debris from
Bangbae Station included tremolite asbestos as well.

BANK said at least 100,000 citizens may have been exposed to the
asbestos daily. A BANK official said, "The way Seoul City and
Seoul Metro remove asbestos illustrates how careless they are.
They say that they want to remove health hazards but end up
putting commuters at greater risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maasz Family Awarded GBP98T in Asbestos Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Dudley Maasz, a worker from Plymouth, Devon,
England, received GBP98,000 in asbestos compensation from BRB
(Residuary) Limited, the named given for British Rail, in an out-
of-court settlement, The Herald reports.

Mr. Maasz worked for Great Western Railways as an engine cleaner
and fireman between 1946 and 1948. His two daughters, Lorraine
Gaul of Yelverton and Ingrid Hanchett of Pebble Park Road,
Plymouth, decided to bring the case following their father's
death.

The Maasz family solicitor, Brigitte Chandler of Wantage law firm
Charles Lucas & Marshall and a specialist in asbestos claims,
brought the claim against British Rail.

Ms. Chandler said, "We were able to establish that Mr. Maasz
death was caused by asbestos during his employment at the Oxford
works. Boilers of locomotives were coated with thick asbestos and
asbestos was also used over the pipes and cylinders of the
engines. As a cleaner and fireman, Mr. Maasz would have been
exposed to this."

After he left Great Western Railways, Mr. Maasz worked at Oxford
University Press in Walton Street and then for Morris Motors in
Cowley. In 1980, he also worked for Oxford Post Office. There was
no known asbestos exposure anywhere else.

In 2005, Mr Maasz started complaining of a pain in his side and
shoulder and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died in
July 2006. British Rail also agreed to pay costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paragon Supervisor Admits to Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Onoff, an asbestos removal supervisor for Paragon
Environmental Construction, Inc., on Nov. 13, 2009, pleaded
guilty to various asbestos cleanup charges in New York federal
court, EmpireStateNews.Net reports.

Mr. Onoff was indicted in May 2009, along with Certified
Environmental Systems, Inc. (CES) and six of its employees. CES
runs an air monitoring company and laboratory that samples and
analyzes the air during asbestos removal projects.

The Indictment describes a decade long scheme in which asbestos
was removed illegally, scattered, and left behind in numerous
buildings and homes in Syracuse, N.Y., and other upstate New York
communities. The indictment further charges that CES provided
false and fraudulent laboratory results to the removal
contractors, thereby leading building owners to believe that the
asbestos had been properly and fully removed.

Mr. Onoff acknowledged that he participated in a conspiracy with
CES to:

-- Defraud the United States;
-- Violate the Clean Air Act;
-- Violate the Toxic Substances Control Act; and
-- Commit mail fraud.

Mr. Onoff now faces a maximum possible penalty of five years in
jail and a US$250,000 fine or twice the gross gain to the
defendants, or twice the gross loss to any victims. As part of
the plea agreement, he has agreed to cooperate against remaining
defendants.

The remaining defendants are:

-- Certified Environmental Services, Inc., (CES) Syracuse, N.Y.;
-- Barbara Duchene, an owner of CES and its Laboratory Manager;
-- Nicole Copeland, a supervisor responsible for the CES
   asbestos air monitoring program;
-- Elisa Dunn, a former field supervisor for CES and an air
   monitor;
-- Sandy Allen, a long time CES air monitor; and
-- Thomas Juliano, a CES air monitor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Horley Plant Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old Evelyn Boxall, of
Horley, Surrey, England, was linked to workplace exposure to
asbestos, Asbestos.Net reports.

Ms. Boxall had been diagnosed with mesothelioma after years of
soldering airplane radios in a plant where she had used an
asbestos mat.

Ms. Boxall died while in hospice care on April 1, 2009, and the
inquest revealed a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Airport Seeking Bids for Cleanup, Repairs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Airport officials at Rochester International Airport in
Rochester, Minn., seek bids for renovating and removing asbestos
from portions of the airport, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The areas to be renovated are the airport restaurant, airport
fire department facilities and portions of the terminal. The work
would be completed during the winter and spring of 2010.

Bids for the work must be submitted by Dec. 1, 2009. The project
will also include asbestos abatement work.

Removal of asbestos is required by law before starting most kinds
of renovation projects, as exposure to airborne asbestos
particles can lead to serious illnesses, including mesothelioma.

In addition to the asbestos work at the airport, the terminal
will also be remodeled because of new screening equipment
standards set forth by the Transportation Security
Administration.

Moreover, recharging stations for personal electronics will be
added, a move that Airport Manager Steve Leqve hopes will give
the terminal a new and improved look.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amphibole Asbestos Found in Four Japanese Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibole asbestos fibers were found it at least four buildings
in Tokyo, Hokkaido and Kagawa: three community centers in
Hokkaido and Kagawa and the ceiling of a private building in
Tokyo, The Mainichi Daily News reports.

The latter three all used a vermiculite-based insulation called
Zonolite.

The Tokyo Occupational Safety and Health Center (TOSHC) made the
findings. Examining vermiculite containing relatively low-toxic
serpentine asbestos using scanning electron microscopes, they
found amphibole asbestos at concentrations of 0.1 to 1.5 percent
-- enough to designate it an asbestos-containing material.

TOSHC also found that trace impurities of aluminum and sodium
matched those of a vermiculite sample taken from a mine in Libby,
Mont. A study there found that 18 percent of residents of Libby
tested after complaining about various health problems were
suffering from chest-lining abnormalities.

A standard method of testing for asbestos used in construction
materials was introduced in June 2008, which local Japanese
governments and other organizations have used to conduct their
own studies.

However, center expert Naoki Toyama said, "We detected (asbestos)
using the ISO method. Under the standard method, however,
asbestos could be overlooked."

Mr. Toyama announced the results of the survey at an academic
meeting in Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, on Nov. 11, 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Allegheny Total 861 at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2009, faced a total of
861 asbestos exposure claims (856 in West Virginia, four in
Pennsylvania, and one in Illinois).

As of June 30, 2009, the Company faced 858 claims alleging
exposure to asbestos in West Virginia, four claims in
Pennsylvania and one in Illinois. (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
11, 2009)

Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have
been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants,
in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving
multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been
brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not
involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of
asbestos-containing products by the Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities. Its historical
operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers,
including Lloyd's of London.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed
in full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the
Company said it believes that it has sufficient insurance to
respond fully to the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however,
have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense
and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits.

The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and
environmental insurance-related actions:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
   Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
   County, Md.),

-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
   Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and

-- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
   Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior
   Court, Ma).

The Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company resolved their
dispute and, therefore, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS was
voluntarily dismissed.

The parties in the remaining actions seek a declaration of
coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and
environmental claims.

Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns
and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric
services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland
and Virginia. The Company's two business segments are the
Delivery and Services segment and the Generation and Marketing
segment. The Company is based in Greensburg, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to be party in asbestos-
related lawsuits in which it is one of numerous defendants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is a multi-industry, capital goods
manufacturer in two principal markets: Cranes and Related
Products and Foodservice Equipment. The Company is based in
Manitowoc, Wis.


                            *********

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  * * *