CAR_Public/091204.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 240
  
                            Headlines

ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers
FINOVA GROUP: Panel Says TLP Noteholders Don't Have Any Claims
HEADWATERS INC: Fact Discovery Ongoing for Unnamed Class Members
IPCS INC: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Against Sale to Sprint Nextel
IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Complaint in New Jersey

NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Remains Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Ninth Circuit Remands Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OSHKOSH CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Continues to Face Lawsuit in California
PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Still Faces FDCPA Violations Suit in N.Y.

PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Copy Protection Software Suit Pending
PLEXUS CORP: Court Enters Order Dismissing Consolidated Lawsuit
SKYTERRA COMMS: Reaches Agreement to Settle Consolidated Actions
VAXGEN INC: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Proposed OxiGENE Merger
VCG HOLDING: Faces Suit in Colorado Resulting from Buy Offer

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Still Face Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Pursues Coverage Litigation in N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand plc Records $1.14 Bil. Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Units Facing Claims in Canada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Still Involved in MPERS Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Cites $652.3M Gross Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Net Reserve at $138.7M at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Party to Two Third-Party Payor Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Cites $2.7M Cleanup Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Reserves $277T for Asbestos Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Facing Injury Lawsuits in 5 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Faces 100,000 Injury Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 21,000 Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 74 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Stehman v. Ballantyne Set for Dec. 14
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Ltd.'s Net Reserves at $1.211Bil at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M for Coverage for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Involved in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Party to 857 Cases (7,584 Claims)
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Records $2.7M ARO Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Facing 9 Injury Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Liabilities Still at $13.56MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,218 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BJ Services Still Facing Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions

                            *********

ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face claims raised in several
purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of
filters.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class-action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants.

Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States
and Canada.

On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 18, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2009.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a
global supplier of a range of integrated systems, modules and
components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and
specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain
aftermarkets.  ArvinMeritor serves a range of OEM customers
worldwide, including truck OEMs, light vehicle OEMs, trailer
producers and specialty vehicle manufacturers, and certain
aftermarkets.  The company operated 82 manufacturing facilities
in 22 countries worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2008, including
facilities operated by joint ventures, in which it has
interests.  Sales from continuing operations outside North
America accounted for approximately 59% of total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal 2008.


FINOVA GROUP: Panel Says TLP Noteholders Don't Have Any Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Arbitration Association Panel has determined that
Thaxton Life Partners, Inc. noteholders' were not entitled to
obtain any recovery against FINOVA Group, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

On Sept. 29, 2006, a group of noteholders of TLP filed suit
against the company and FINOVA Capital.  The company and FINOVA
Capital were served with the TLP Action in February 2007.  The
TLP Action purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
approximately 150 TLP note holders with claims related to
approximately $20 million in TLP notes.  The TLP Action alleges
that, in connection with TLP's sale of its notes, the company,
FINOVA Capital, and several other defendants participated in a
civil conspiracy, violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act, violated the civil RICO statute, and were unjustly
enriched.  In its various counts, the TLP Action seeks actual,
treble, and/or punitive damages.

The TLP Action was filed in the South Carolina Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County, Sixth Judicial Circuit, and was
removed on Feb. 6, 2007, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina.

Upon motion by the Company and FINOVA Capital to the South
Carolina District Court seeking an order compelling such
arbitration, the South Carolina District Court granted the relief
sought and entered an order dismissing the action on
May 30, 2007.  On June 19, 2007, the TLP plaintiffs appealed such
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  

On June 29, 2007, the TLP plaintiffs filed an arbitration demand
with the American Arbitration Association.  On Aug. 16, 2007, the
company and FINOVA Capital filed a response to the arbitration
demand denying any liability.  On Dec. 20, 2007, the TLP
plaintiffs' appeal was denied by the Fourth Circuit.  On Jan. 23,
2008, a petition for rehearing by the TLP plaintiffs was also
denied by the Fourth Circuit.  

A hearing on the merits of the TLP Action was originally
scheduled to be heard in September 2008, but was rescheduled for
mid-January 2009 due to one of the members of the arbitration
panel having a scheduling conflict.  The mid-January 2009 hearing
was postponed due to the death of one of the three arbitrators
scheduled to hear the matter.  The parties have agreed upon a new
third arbitrator.

The American Arbitration Association Panel had proposed hearing
dates in early June 2009, which timing was acceptable to FINOVA.  
The plaintiffs objected to the June hearing dates, and on May 5,
2009, the Arbitration Panel agreed to consider an alternative
schedule.  Ultimately, the current schedule was agreed to by the
parties and a hearing scheduling order was issued.

On May 12, 2009, the Arbitration Panel  issued a hearing
scheduling order in the TLP Action establishing a briefing
schedule, requiring that all written submissions be submitted by
Aug. 5, 2009, and providing for the hearing on the merits to be
held on Aug. 10, 2009, continuing for consecutive days through
Aug. 13, 2009, if necessary.

The evidentiary portion of the hearing concluded on Aug. 11,
2009.  The Arbitration Panel requested the parties submit post-
trial briefs by Aug. 21, 2009.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the panel issued a unanimous Final Award,
determining that neither the evidence nor the law supported an
award against the company, concluding that the plaintiffs in the
TLP action were not entitled to obtain any recovery against the
company.

The Finova Group, Inc. -- http://www.finova.com/-- is a    
financial services holding company that provided a range of
financing and capital markets products, primarily to mid-size
businesses through its principal operating subsidiary, FINOVA
Capital Corporation.  The Company's business activities have
been limited to maximizing the value of its portfolio through
the orderly collection of assets.  The orderly collection of
assets includes collection efforts pursuant to underlying
contractual terms, negotiation of prepayments and sales of
assets or collateral.  The Company has substantially completed
the liquidation of its portfolio and its focus has shifted to
the continued wind down of its operations and future dissolution
of its entities.


HEADWATERS INC: Fact Discovery Ongoing for Unnamed Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery has begun with respect to unnamed class members in
a class action against Headwaters Inc. brought by a group who had
sued over a purchase agreement involving a synthetic fuel
technology, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In October 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase
agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc.

The transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to
Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by
Davidson.

In June 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
filed by Former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other
things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent
infringement and interference with contract arising out of the
1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson
and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other.

All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial
proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust.

The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially
all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc.

At trial, the plaintiffs sought compensatory damages from
Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million plus
prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

On June 22, 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the
amount of $8.7 million for eight named plaintiffs representing a
portion of the class members.

The jury also reached a verdict on certain legal liability issues
and an advisory verdict on damages of $12.7 million on behalf of
the balance of the class members.

Fact discovery has begun with respect to unnamed class members.

Headwaters expects that there will be further trial court
proceedings to resolve an equitable claim as to all members of
the class and the remaining legal issues as to the unnamed class
members.  Headwaters says it is not expected that a final
judgment will be entered by the trial court until all issues are
concluded following such further trial court proceedings which
have not yet been scheduled.

South Jordan, Utah-based Headwaters Incorporated is a diversified
growth company providing products, technologies and services to
the energy, construction and home improvement industries.  
Through its energy, coal combustion products and building
products businesses, the Company earns a revenue stream that
helps to provide the capital to expand and acquire synergistic
new business opportunities.


IPCS INC: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Against Sale to Sprint Nextel
---------------------------------------------------------------
iPCS, Inc., a PCS Affiliate of Sprint Nextel Corporation, reached
an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the claims asserted in
the putative shareholder class action lawsuits related to Sprint
Nextel's proposed acquisition of iPCS.  The cases are being heard
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

On Nov. 17, 2009, iPCS and the other defendants and the
plaintiffs in the lawsuits executed a memorandum of understanding
to settle all claims asserted in the lawsuits, subject to the
execution of a stipulation of settlement, notice to iPCS
shareholders and approval by the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The memorandum of understanding provides, among other
things, that iPCS shall make supplemental disclosures to its
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9.  iPCS
will file an amendment to its Schedule 14D-9 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission to make such disclosures.

On Oct. 28, 2009, Sprint Nextel commenced its tender offer to
acquire all the outstanding shares of common stock of iPCS at a
price of $24.00 per share in cash.  The tender offer was
scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on
Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009, unless it is extended.  The iPCS board
of directors has unanimously recommended that iPCS shareholders
accept the tender offer, tender their shares of iPCS common stock
in the tender offer, and if necessary, adopt the merger
agreement.

Complete terms and conditions of the tender offer are set forth
in the offer to purchase, letter of transmittal and other related
materials filed with the SEC by Sprint Nextel and Ireland
Acquisition Corporation on Oct. 28, 2009, with the tender offer
statement on Schedule TO, as amended.

iPCS, Inc. -- http://www.ipcswirelessinc.com/-- through its  
operating subsidiaries, is a Sprint PCS Affiliate of Sprint
Nextel Corporation with the exclusive right to sell wireless
mobility communications network products and services under the
Sprint brand in 81 markets including markets in Illinois,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and Tennessee.  The
territory includes key markets such as Grand Rapids (MI), Fort
Wayne (IN), the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee (Johnson City,
Kingsport and Bristol), Scranton (PA), Saginaw-Bay City (MI),
Central Illinois (Peoria, Springfield, Decatur, and Champaign)
and the Quad Cities region of Illinois and Iowa (Bettendorf and
Davenport, IA, and Moline and Rock Island, IL).  As of Sept. 30,
2009, iPCS's licensed territory had a total population of
approximately 15.1 million residents, of which its wireless
network covered approximately 12.7 million residents, and iPCS
had approximately 720,100 subscribers.  iPCS is headquartered in
Schaumburg, Illinois.


IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Complaint in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ivivi Technologies, Inc., faces a purported shareholder class
action complaint in connection with the proposed sale of its
assets, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 24, 2009, the company executed an Asset Purchase
Agreement with Ivivi Technologies, LLC an entity affiliated with
Steven M. Gluckstern, the company's Chairman, President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Ajax Capital,
LLC, an entity controlled by Steven M. Gluckstern.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Asset Purchase Agreement, a
purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Lehmann
v. Gluckstern, et. al., was filed by one of the company's
shareholders in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of
New Jersey in Bergen County, on Nov. 13, 2009, naming the
company, its directors, Ivivi LLC and Ajax as defendants.

The complaint alleges causes of action against the defendants for
breach of their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
sale of the company's assets to Ivivi LLC.  It also alleges that
Ivivi LLC and Ajax aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the company's directors.

Consequently, plaintiff seeks relief including, among other
things:

     (i) preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
         consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
         Asset Purchase Agreement and

    (ii) payment of plaintiff's costs and expenses, including
         attorneys' and experts' fees.

The lawsuit is in its preliminary stage, and the court has not
yet made any determinations in the matter, including whether to
certify the purported class.

Ivivi Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ivivitechnologies.com/--  
is an early stage medical technology company focusing on
designing, developing and commercializing electrotherapeutic
technologies.  Ivivi has focused its research and development
activities on targeted pulsed electromagnetic field (tPEMF)
technology.  The company is marketing products utilizing its
tPEMF technology to various surgery markets for adjunctive use in
the treatment of post operative pain and edema in superficial
soft tissue.  The company is developing technology for other
therapeutic medical markets.


NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp.'s motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
consumer class-action case remains pending in the the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 25, 2009.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative
consumer class-action lawsuits were filed against the company,
asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of the company's previous
generation MCP and GPU products used in notebook systems.

Most of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court in the Northern
District of California, but three were filed in state court in
California, in Federal Court in New York, and in Federal Court
in Texas.  Those three actions have since been removed or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, where all of the actions now
are currently pending.

The various lawsuits are titled:

   -- Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
      Hewlett Packard,

   -- Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard,

   -- Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc.,

   -- Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA
      Corp., and

   -- West v. NVIDIA Corp.

The First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, which no
longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc.  The various
complaints assert claims for, among other things, breach of
warranty, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and other
consumer protection statutes under the laws of various
jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the above
cases related under the relevant local rules.  On Dec. 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class
action cases.

On Feb. 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the cases, as
well as two other cases pending against Hewlett-Packard, under
the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and ordered the
plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2, 2009.

On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain
related issues.

On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead
counsel.

On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust
Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On May 14, 2009, the District Court entered a case schedule
order, which sets a Sept. 28, 2009 hearing date for an
anticipated motion to dismiss, a Dec. 7, 2009 hearing date for
anticipated class certification motion, and a July 12, 2010 fact
discovery deadline.

The District Court subsequently entered an order resetting the
hearing date for an anticipated motion to dismiss for Oct. 19,
2009, based on a stipulation of the parties.

The Court heard arguments on NVIDIA's motion to dismiss on
Oct. 19, 2009, and took the matter under submission.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Ninth Circuit Remands Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against NVIDIA Corp. to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for
further proceedings, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 25, 2009.

In September 2008, three putative securities class-action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California arising out of its announcements on July 2, 2008,
that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover
anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of the company's previous
generation media and communications processors or MCPs and
graphics processing units or GPUs and that the company was
revising financial guidance for its second quarter of fiscal
2009.

The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On Oct. 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption "In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL)."

Pursuant to the order consolidating the lawsuits , NVIDIA is not
obligated to respond to any of the underlying complaints.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
ReForm Act of 1995, motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were due by Nov. 10, 2008.  A hearing on these
motions is currently scheduled for Dec. 22, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation
of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.

On Feb. 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District
Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending
resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay.

On Nov. 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing
the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


OSHKOSH CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Nov.
18, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of the company filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action lawsuit
docketed as Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation
and Robert G. Bohn.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading to the
company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and announcement
of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations were filed.

These lawsuits have been consolidated and an amended complaint
has been filed.  The amended complaint substantially expands the
class period in which securities law violations are alleged to
have occurred and names Charles L. Szews, David M. Sagehorn and
the company's independent auditor as additional defendants.

On July 24, 2009, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss
the lawsuit, and the motions have been fully briefed.

Oshkosh Corp. -- http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/-- designs,  
manufactures and markets a range of specialty vehicles and
vehicle bodies, including defense trucks, access equipment, fire
& emergency vehicles and concrete mixers and refuse collection
vehicles.  The company operates in four business segments:
defense, access equipment, fire & emergency, and commercial. It
manufactures defense trucks under the Oshkosh brand name, and is
a manufacturer of severe-duty heavy- and medium-payload tactical
trucks for the United States Department of Defense (DoD).  The
company is also the manufacturer of aerial work platForms under
the JLG brand name.  Under the Pierce brand name, the company
manufactures fire apparatus assembled on both custom and
commercial chassis.  The company manufactures aircraft rescue and
fire fighting (ARFF) and airport snow removal vehicles under the
Oshkosh brand name and ambulances under the Medtec brand name.


PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Continues to Face Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Capital Management, LLC, continues to face a class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court in Santa
Ana, California, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On June 3, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana, California.

Plaintiffs claim to be persons who were members of the certified
class in the Worley v. Storage USA case, Orange County Superior
Court, which was settled in 2008.

The company acquired the debt owed by the plaintiffs to Storage
USA in the latter half of 2004 and the first half of 2005
Plaintiffs make broad, general assertions that the company has
violated the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act with respect
to information about the plaintiffs that the company furnished to
consumer reporting agencies.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages to
be determined by the court, attorney's fees and court costs.

This lawsuit has been referred to legal counsel.

Performance Capital Management, LLC -- http://www.pamco.net/--  
buys portfolios of charged-off credit card debt and other
delinquent receivables (such as commercial loans and auto,
secured and unsecured consumer installment loans) at an
undervalued price from federal and state banking and savings
institutions, loan agencies, and other sources.  It then works to
collect on the debt.  The company also provides collections
services for third parties.  Performance Capital Management
occasionally sells its acquisitions or portions of them to
capitalize on market conditions or to dispose of underperForming
assets.


PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Still Faces FDCPA Violations Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Capital Management, LLC, continues to face a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On July 9, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, makes
broad, general assertions that the company violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. with
respect to its debt collection practices.

The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as well as
attorney's fees and court costs.

This lawsuit has been referred to legal counsel.

Performance Capital Management, LLC -- http://www.pamco.net/--  
buys portfolios of charged-off credit card debt and other
delinquent receivables (such as commercial loans and auto,
secured and unsecured consumer installment loans) at an
undervalued price from federal and state banking and savings
institutions, loan agencies, and other sources.  It then works to
collect on the debt.  The company also provides collections
services for third parties.  Performance Capital Management
occasionally sells its acquisitions or portions of them to
capitalize on market conditions or to dispose of underperforming
assets.


PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Copy Protection Software Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit against Playlogic, filed on June 26, 2007, is in
connection with alleged damages as a result of copy protection
software included in Age of Pirates - Caribbean Tales.

The company says that it does not foresee any liability in this
matter, as plaintiffs have clearly sued the wrong company and
the wrong entity.  Playlogic acts only as a publisher of the
game and therefore is not liable for possible faults in
production or distribution.

Moreover, as far as any claim could be brought against Playlogic,
it would be the Dutch subsidiary Playlogic International NV, with
its statutory seat in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, that would have
to be sued.

As a consequence, the pending case should fail on both grounds
and any new action against the Dutch subsidiary would have to be
brought before the Dutch courts that are even more likely than
the US courts to reject class actions like this.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 18, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009,

The suit is Gindling v. Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
07-cv-05610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-847-8315
          Fax: 212-473-8096
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com


PLEXUS CORP: Court Enters Order Dismissing Consolidated Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has
entered a final judgment formally dismissing a consolidated class
action lawsuit against Plexus Corp., according to the company's
Nov. 18, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 3, 2009.


Two securities class action lawsuits were filed in the on June 25
and June 29, 2007, against the company and certain company
officers and/or directors.

The two actions were later consolidated.

The consolidated complaint named the company and these
individuals as defendants:

     -- Dean A. Foate, President, Chief Executive Officer and a
        director of the company;

     -- F. Gordon Bitter, the company's Former Senior
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and

     -- Paul Ehlers, the company's Former Executive
        Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

The consolidated complaint alleged securities law violations and
sought unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
statements regarding its defense sector business in early
calendar 2006.

On March 6, 2009, the court granted the motion of the company and
the individual defendants to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint.

On July 23, 2009, a final judgment was entered by the court
Formally dismissing the action, and the time for appeal expired
on Aug. 24, 2009.

Plexus Corp. -- http://www.plexus.com/-- along with its  
subsidiaries, provides product realization services to original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and other technology companies in
the wireline/networking, wireless infrastructure, medical,
industrial/commercial and defense/security/aerospace market
sectors.  The company provides advanced product design,
manufacturing and testing services to its customers. Plexus
offers its customers the ability to outsource all stages of
product realization, including product specifications;
development, design and design validation; regulatory compliance
support; prototyping and new product introduction; manufacturing
test equipment development; materials sourcing, procurement and
supply-chain management; product assembly/manufacturing,
configuration and test, and order fulfillment, logistics and
service/repair.  The company operates in United States, Asia,
Mexico and Europe.


SKYTERRA COMMS: Reaches Agreement to Settle Consolidated Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
SkyTerra Communications, Inc., on Nov. 18, 2009, reached an
agreement in principle providing for the settlement of the
consolidated actions in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned In re SkyTerra Communications, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4987-CC, according
to the company's Nov. 20, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The agreement in principle, reflected in a Memorandum of
Understanding, sets forth, among other things, that the parties
have agreed that in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all settled claims:

     (i) the preliminary proxy would include certain disclosures
         requested by co-lead counsel for plaintiffs;

    (ii) the merger agreement would be amended to include a
         non-waivable "majority of the minority" stockholder
         vote requirement and

   (iii) SkyTerra will convene a meeting of stockholders for the
         purpose of electing directors in the event that the
         merger is not consummated on or before March 31, 2010.

The MOU further provides that SkyTerra will consider additional
supplemental disclosures to be provided to SkyTerra stockholders
in connection with the merger based on reasonably request by and
discussions with co-lead counsel for plaintiffs.

The MOU contemplates confirmatory discovery regarding the
fairness of the settlement, the execution of a definitive
Stipulation of Settlement pending such confirmatory discovery,
and notice of the settlement being provided to SkyTerra
stockholders.

The settlement, as well as Plaintiff's request for attorneys
fees, is subject to judicial review and will require Court
approval.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          James H. Miller, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-667-7706

               - and -  

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Laina M. Herbert, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          P.O. Box 1328
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1328
          Telephone: 302-888-6500


VAXGEN INC: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Proposed OxiGENE Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
VaxGen, Inc., is facing two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits in connection with its proposed merger with a wholly-
owned subsidiary of OXiGENE, Inc., according to the company's
Nov. 20, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Oct. 30, 2009 and Nov. 4, 2009, two putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed against VaxGen, members of the VaxGen
board of directors, OXiGENE, and OXiGENE Merger Sub, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo in connection
with the proposed merger whereby Merger Sub, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of OXiGENE, will merge with and into VaxGen, with
VaxGen continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of OXiGENE
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Oct. 14, 2009.

The lawsuits, styled respectively William Ming v. VaxGen, Inc. et
al., Case No. CIV 489164, and Hawes v. VaxGen, Inc. et al., Case
No. CIV 489313, allege, 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 VaxGen and OXiGENE aided and abetted
those purported breaches.

The plaintiffs seek, 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.

VaxGen -- http://www.vaxgen.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical  
company based in Brisbane, California.  The company owns a state-
of-the-art biopharmaceutical manufacturing facility with a 1,000-
liter bioreactor that can be used to make cell culture or
microbial biologic products.


VCG HOLDING: Faces Suit in Colorado Resulting from Buy Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp., was served with a complaint filed by David
Cohen in the District Court in Jefferson County, Colorado,
according to its Nov. 13, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the Complaint, Mr. Cohen alleges that he brings the purported
class action lawsuit against the company and each of the
individual members of the Board on behalf of the company's
shareholders.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Troy Lowrie,
has conflicts of interest with respect to the Proposal and that
in connection with the Board's evaluation of the Proposal, the
individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under
Colorado law.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of Mr.
Cohen as class representative, either an injunction enjoining the
defendants from consummating or closing the Acquisition, or if
the Acquisition is consummated, rescission of the Acquisition, an
award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial and an
award of reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On Nov. 4, 2009, the company received an offer from Mr. Lowrie,
Lowrie Management, LLLP and certain other unidentified investors
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
company, other than those shares held by Lowrie, for $2.10 per
share in cash.  In response, the company's Board of Directors
Formed a Special Committee consisting solely of directors who are
deemed "independent" under the rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market
and disinterested with respect to the Proposal.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business  
of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live
adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services.  As of
Dec. 31, 2008, the company, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates 20 nightclubs in Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Texas,
North Carolina, Minnesota, Kentucky, Maine, Florida and
California.  The company operates under the brand names, Diamond
Cabaret, PT's, Jaguar's Gold Club, Penthouse, Pet of the Month,
Pet of the Year, Three Key Logo and One-Key Logo.  The company
owns International Entertainment Consultants, Inc. (IEC), which
provides management services to its nightclubs.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company acquired Jaguar's Gold Club and
Imperial Showgirls Gentlemen's Club.  Its subsidiaries include
PT's Showclub, Diamond Cabaret, The Penthouse Club, Schiek's
Palace Royale, The Men's Club and LaBoheme Gentlemen's Club.


                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Still Face Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc still
face asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies
have also been named as defendants. Most of those claims has been
filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or
Trane Inc. and generally allege injury caused by exposure to
asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New
Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes.

Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing purchased
from third-party suppliers.

Ingersoll-Rand plc designs, manufactures, sells and provides
products to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and
buildings. The Company also transports and protects food and
perishables, secures homes and commercial properties, and
increases industrial productivity and efficiency. Brands include
Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and
Trane. The Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Pursues Coverage Litigation in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in
litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims.

The insurance carriers named in this suit have challenged Trane's
right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various
primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking
coverage for environmental claims (NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. The environmental
claims against most of the insurers in the NJ Litigation have
been settled.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add claims
for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities against
16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.

Trane engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time.

Trane has now settled with a substantial number of its insurers,
collectively accounting for about 80 percent of its recorded
asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of Jan. 31,
2009. More specifically, effective Aug. 26, 2008, Trane entered
into a coverage-in-place agreement (August 26 Agreement) with
these five insurance companies or groups:

     1) Hartford;
     2) Travelers;
     3) Allstate (solely in its capacity as successor-in-
        interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance
        Company);
     4) Dairyland Insurance Company; and
     5) AIG.

The August 26 Agreement provides for the reimbursement by the
insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for asbestos
bodily injury claims under specified terms and conditions and in
exchange for certain releases and indemnifications from Trane.

In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Trane entered into a settlement
agreement with Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest
Reinsurance Company, both members of the Everest Re group,
resolving all claims in the NJ Litigation involving policies
issued by those companies (Everest Re Agreement). The Everest Re
Agreement contains a number of elements, including policy buy-
outs and partial buy-outs in exchange for a cash payment along
with coverage-in-place features similar to those contained in the
August 26 Agreement, in exchange for certain releases and
indemnifications by Trane.

On Jan. 26, 2009, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with Columbia Casualty Company, Continental Casualty
Company, and Continental Insurance Company in its own capacity
and as successor-in-interest to Harbor Insurance Company and
London Guarantee & Accident Company of New York (CNA Agreement).
The CNA Agreement provides for the reimbursement by the insurer
signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for indemnification
from Trane.

Trane remains in settlement negotiations with the insurer
defendants in the NJ Litigation not encompassed within the August
26 Agreement, Everest Re Agreement, and the CNA Agreement.

Once concluded, the Company said it believes the NJ Litigation
will resolve coverage issues with respect to about 95 percent of
Trane's recorded insurance receivable in connection with
asbestos-related liabilities.

Ingersoll-Rand plc designs, manufactures, sells and provides
products to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and
buildings. The Company also transports and protects food and
perishables, secures homes and commercial properties, and
increases industrial productivity and efficiency. Brands include
Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and
Trane. The Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand plc Records $1.14 Bil. Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters
totaled US$1.147 billion at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with
US$1.195 billion at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's liability for asbestos-related matters was US$1.159
billion at June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2009)

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$409.3 million at Sept. 30, 2009, compared
with US$423.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Total income associated with settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries was US$200,000 during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Total costs associated with
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries were US$800,000 during the three months ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Total income associated with settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries was US$3.8 million during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Total costs associated with
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries were US$1.5 million during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Ingersoll-Rand plc designs, manufactures, sells and provides
products to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and
buildings. The Company also transports and protects food and
perishables, secures homes and commercial properties, and
increases industrial productivity and efficiency. Brands include
Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and
Trane. The Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Units Facing Claims in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Sealed Air Corporation's subsidiaries in Canada
continue to be involved in asbestos-related litigation filed in
various Canadian courts.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in
the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench. W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are
also named as defendants.

The claim was brought as a putative class proceeding and seeks
recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident,
other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing
and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

Another proceeding was filed in January 2005 in the Manitoba
Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified
subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding styled Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069),
seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services
allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members
of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and
its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie,
as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing
and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (Canadian
Court), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions referred to above. The
Canadian Court has entered an order extending the stay until
March 1, 2010.

A global settlement of these Canadian actions, save and except
for claims against the Canadian government, has been finalized
and will be funded entirely by Grace (Canadian Settlement). The
Canadian Court issued an Order on Oct. 17, 2008 approving of the
Canadian Settlement, and released its detailed reasons for that
order on Oct. 23, 2008.

Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-
based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of
food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company
is based in Elmwood Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Still Involved in MPERS Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to be involved in an asbestos-
related class action lawsuit involving the Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS).

On Sept. 15, 2003, the case of Senn v. Hickey, et al. (Case No.
03-CV-4372) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark). This lawsuit seeks class action status on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former
officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The Company
is required to provide indemnification to the other defendants,
and accordingly the Company's counsel is also defending them.

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his choice
of lead counsel. The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number
of allegations against the defendants.

The principal allegations are that during the above period the
defendants materially misled the investing public, artificially
inflated the price of the Company's common stock by publicly
issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. GAAP by
failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's
contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past
operations of W. R. Grace & Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Senn v.
Hickey, et al. case for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 19,
2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The Court determined that the complaint failed adequately to
allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than
T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with
respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately
alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the Company. Mr. Dunphy is
a current director of the Company and was formerly Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the Company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
Court certifies the matter for interlocutory appeal. On Feb. 13,
2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants'
reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied
the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court
from granting a motion to dismiss based on the Company's
arguments other than scienter. On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a
motion to certify a class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the Company during the
period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and
to substitute a new class representative, the Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS). On March 26, 2007,
the Court entered an order permitting Miles Senn to withdraw as
lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be substituted as lead
plaintiff.

Consequently, the case is now properly referred to as MPERS v.
Sealed Air Corporation, et al. On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead
plaintiff, filed a motion to certify a class of all persons or
entities that purchased Sealed Air Corporation securities during
the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002, both dates
inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their
memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class
certification. On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also
filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., and Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly require dismissal of MPERS's claims.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, in an
Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2008, the Court denied
defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.

On March 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.

On April 27, 2009, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff to settle the MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation,
et al. case, subject to documentation and Court approval. The
agreement provides for payment of US$20 million, which will be
substantially funded by the Company's primary and excess
insurance carriers.

On May 27, 2009, the Court entered an Order formally closing the
action without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon
good cause shown within sixty days, to reopen the matter if the
settlement were not consummated. On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court
entered an Order granting preliminary approval to the settlement
and setting a hearing for final approval of the settlement on
Dec. 2, 2009.

Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-
based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of
food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company
is based in Elmwood Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Cites $652.3M Gross Reserve at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental exposures were US$652.3 million during the three
and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$854.1
million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's net reserves for A&E exposures were US$622.8
million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with US$808.2 million during the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$141.3 million representing case reserves reported
by ceding companies, US$152.1 million representing additional
case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance
claims, US$66.5 million representing case reserves established by
the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt.
McKinley, and US$292.4 million representing IBNR (incurred but
not reported) reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$618.7 million, or 94.8
percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$486.4 million was for
assumed business and US$132.3 million was for direct business.

The Company's net three-year asbestos survival ratio was 6.8
years at Sept. 30, 2009.

Everest Re Group, Ltd. provides reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company is
based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Net Reserve at $138.7M at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestos and
environmental claim reserves were US$138.7 million at Sept. 30,
2009, compared with US$145 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$176.4 million at
Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$172.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Old Republic International Corporation engages in insurance
underwriting. It conducts its operations through a number of
regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three
major segments, namely its General Insurance (property and
liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title Insurance
Groups. The Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Party to Two Third-Party Payor Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, as of Sept.
30, 2009, is still party to two Third-Party Payor Actions,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been filed by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos
manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for funding
of corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of
smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking cessation
programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of cigarettes;
restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees.

Although no specific amounts are provided, it is possible that
requested damages against cigarette manufacturers in these cases
might be in the billions of dollars.

Several federal circuit courts of appeals and state appellate
courts have ruled that Third-Party Payors do not have standing to
bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, relying primarily
on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were too remote.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs'
appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of
appeals.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company that manufactures and
sells cigarettes in the United States through Liggett Group LLC,
develops reduced risk cigarette products through Vector Tobacco
Inc., and acquires more operating companies and real estate
properties through New Valley LLC. The Company is based in Miami.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in
numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy
year in question, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9,
2009.

At the time a liability associated with a case becomes probable
and can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues for the
liability by a charge to earnings. For all other cases, an
estimate of the costs associated with the matters cannot be made
due to the inherent uncertainties in the litigation process.

Bucyrus International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
high productivity mining equipment. The Company operates in two
business segments: surface mining and underground mining. The
Company is based in South Milwaukee, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Cites $2.7M Cleanup Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. has recorded a liability of
US$2.7 million related to potential future asbestos abatement
activities at its Properties, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self-managed, self-
administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust
(REIT) that owns, develops, acquires, leases, manages and
operates regional shopping malls, open-air centers, community
centers and office properties. The Company is based in
Chattanooga, Tenn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. continues to be subject to asbestos-related claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these
claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event any
asbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

MYR Group Inc. performs construction services in two business
segments: Transmission and Distribution (T&D), and Commercial and
Industrial (C&I). The Company is based in Rolling Meadows, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group, from time to time, has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, in which
the Company has been dismissed without prejudice in several of
these cases.

In other cases, the Company's contractors and its insurance
policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on the
Company's financial statements.

California Water Service Group is a holding company that provides
water utility and other related services in California,
Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii through its wholly owned
subsidiaries. The Company is based in San Jose, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company and
its operations may be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits,
claims, investigations and proceedings, concerning asbestos-
related matters.

No other asbestos-related details were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

FutureFuel Corp. manufactures biodiesel and other biofuels.
However, its core business is specialty chemicals, which includes
chemicals like herbicides, detergent additives, colorants,
photographic and imaging chemicals, and food additives. The
Company is based in Clayton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Reserves $277T for Asbestos Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue that is expected to be abated over time,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had an environmental reserve in
the amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of
Gradall's facility in Ohio. Three specific remediation projects
that were identified prior to the acquisition are in process of
remediation with a remaining reserve balance of US$143,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.

Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may
have to be remediated over time.

Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes, and services
equipment for right-of-way maintenance and agriculture. Products
include tractor-mounted mowing and other vegetation maintenance
equipment, street sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow
removal equipment, pothole patchers, agricultural implements and
related aftermarket parts and services. The Company is based in
Seguin, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Facing Injury Lawsuits in 5 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of asbestos lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, New Jersey, California and
South Dakota.

The suits allege that certain wire and cable, which may have
contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual
personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money
damages as the sole remedy.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered
by the applicable insurance policies and all defenses of these
claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from
the manufacturers of such wire and cable if it were determined
that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed
contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL Corporation's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it
could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

Houston Wire & Cable Company distributes specialty electrical
wire and cable to the U.S. electrical distribution market through
11 locations in 10 states throughout the United States. The
Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Faces 100,000 Injury Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 100,000 asbestos personal injury claims during
the year ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 115,000 during the
year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company faced 103,000 open asbestos claims during the nine
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 115,000 during the nine
months ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21,
2009)

The claims asserted against the Company result from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary.

During the year ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 2,000
new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 16,000 claims
dismissed. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company
recorded 4,000 new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 21,000
claims dismissed.

Total asbestos reserve was US$543 million as of Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with US$572 million as of Sept. 30, 2008.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$422 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims), of which US$64 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$458
million at Sept. 30, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 21,000 Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules Incorporated, faced 21,000
asbestos personal injury claims as of Sept. 30, 2009, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 23, 2009.

Hercules faced 24,000 open asbestos claims as of June 30, 2009,
compared with 27,000 claims as of Nov. 13, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 21, 2009)

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims arise from alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank
products, which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries
to a limited industrial market.

From Nov. 13, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded
1,000 new claims filed and 7,000 claims dismissed. As of Sept.
30, 2009, Hercules' asbestos reserve was US$484 million.

In November 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of
Hercules. At that time, Hercules' recorded reserve for asbestos
claims was US$233 million for indemnity costs.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 74 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 74 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 75
lawsuits as of June 30, 2009.

These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Company (UE), Central
Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating
Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), and
Illinois Power Company (IP).

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named, along with
numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by
plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case is significant.
As many as 192 parties are named in some pending cases and as few
as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of
Sept. 30, 2009, the average number of parties were 73.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric generating
plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former
CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating
Company (AERG).

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a former parent
subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As a part of
the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating
plants, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify
Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial,
typically would be shared among the various defendants.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company faced two suits, UE faced 31
suits, CIPS faced 30 suits, Genco had none, CILCO faced 14 suits,
and IP faced 40 suits, for a total of 74.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, nine asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc. (EEI). The general liability
insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims.

Asbestos liabilities at Sept. 30, 2009 were as follows: Ameren -
US$14 million, UE - US$4 million, CIPS - US$3 million, CILCO -
US$2 million and IP - US$5 million.

Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4 million
customers and natural gas to almost one million customers in
Missouri and Illinois through its utility subsidiaries. The
Company has a generating capacity of more than 16,500 MW
(primarily coal-fired). The Company is based in St. Louis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Stehman v. Ballantyne Set for Dec. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. says that Larry C. Stehman's asbestos
suit is rescheduled for trial to commence on Dec. 14, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

The Company is currently a defendant in an asbestos case entitled
Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos Corporation,
Limited and Ballantyne Strong, Inc. individually and as successor
in interest to Strong International, Strong Electric Corporation
and Century Projector Corporation, et al.

The case was filed on Dec. 8, 2006 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco.

Ballantyne Strong, Inc. (f/k/a Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.) and its
units (Strong Westrex, Inc., Strong Technical Services, Inc.,
Strong/MDI Screen Systems, Inc., and the American West Beijing
Trading Company, Ltd.) design, develop, manufacture, service and
distribute theatre and lighting systems. The Company is based in
Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Ltd.'s Net Reserves at $1.211Bil at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited's net asbestos-related reserves were US$1.211 billion
at June 30, 2009, compared with US$1.365 billion at Dec. 31,
2008.

The Company's gross asbestos-related reserves were US$2.431
billion at June 30, 2009, compared with US$2.629 billion at Dec.
31, 2008.

The Company's exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
principally arises out of liabilities acquired when the Company
purchased Westchester Specialty in 1998 and the P&C business of
CIGNA in 1999, with the larger exposure contained within the
liabilities acquired in the CIGNA transaction.

The A&E net loss reserves including allocated and unallocated
loss expense reserves and provision for uncollectible reinsurance
at June 30, 2009, of US$1.46 billion are comprised of US$1.103
billion in reserves held by Brandywine run-off companies, US$107
million of reserves held by Westchester Specialty, US$131 million
of reserves held by ACE Bermuda and US$120 million of reserves
held by Insurance - Overseas General.

ACE Limited, through its various subsidiaries, provides insurance
and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide. The Company
operates through the following business segments: Insurance -
North American, Insurance - Overseas General, Global Reinsurance,
and Life. The Company is based in Zurich, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M for Coverage for A&E Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT) has insurance
coverage for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to
US$10 million per occurrence and up to US$10 million in the
aggregate, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials. In the past, the
Company has performed remediation of those environmental matters,
and it is not aware of any significant remaining potential
liability relating to these environmental matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testing
relating to these matters.

Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust is a real estate
investment trust (REIT) that focuses on retail shopping malls and
power centers located in the eastern half of the United States,
primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Company is based in
Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Involved in Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in
asbestos-related product liability lawsuits.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 16, 2009.

Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. produces thermosetting resins,
or thermosets. Thermosets are an ingredient for paints, coatings,
glues and other adhesives produced for consumer or industrial
uses. The Company is based in Columbus, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Party to 857 Cases (7,584 Claims)
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2009, was a party to 857
pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,584 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials
formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise).

These products were manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded
260 claims filed, 189 claims dismissed, and 11 claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim was US$16,000 and total
defense costs were US$1,975,000.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded
723 claims filed, 2,668 claims dismissed, and 75 claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim was US$1,813 and total
defense costs were US$3,448,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.

Of the 7,584 claims pending at Sept. 30, 2009, about 103 set
forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum). About 77 of the 103 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), about 21 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages) and five sought over
US$10 million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 80 of the 103
claims sought between US$250,000 and US$600,000, about 19 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million and four sought over US$5
million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 77 of the 103
claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million, about 21
sought between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and five sought
over US$5 million.

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the
discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$5.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is
monetary in nature. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation
have been covered by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.

TriMas Corporation and its subsidiaries manufacture and
distribute products for commercial, industrial and consumer
markets. The Company is engaged in five reportable segments with
diverse products and market channels: Packaging, Energy,
Aerospace & Defense, Engineered Components and Cequent. The
Company is based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Records $2.7M ARO Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp.'s subsidiary, Southern Star Central
Gas Pipeline, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2009, recorded an asset
retirement obligation (ARO) of US$2.7 million and its
corresponding regulatory asset was US$2.4 million.

Central recorded an ARO for the remediation of asbestos existing
on its system. The asbestos existing on Central's system is
primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used before the
Clean Air Act of 1973 that established the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) that regulates
the use of asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2008, Central's ARO liability was US$2.6 million and
the corresponding regulatory asset was US$2.5 million.

Central is recovering about US$300,000 annually in its rates
related to those costs.

Southern Star Central Corp. is involved in natural gas pipeline
operations and development opportunities. The Company owns the
development rights for a natural gas pipeline in the Rocky
Mountain region, which could be developed in the future. The
Company is based in Owensboro, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Facing 9 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite
Manufacturing Co., is a defendant in nine claims (six of which
include the Company as a defendant), which allege bodily injury
due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in
excess of 30 years ago.

Premix faced seven claims (four of which include the Company as a
defendant), which allege bodily injury due to exposure to
asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years
ago. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2009)

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability
carriers that have provided product liability coverage to the
Company including potential coverage for alleged injuries related
to asbestos exposure.

Several of these insurance carriers are providing a defense to
Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of
these asbestos cases. Certain of these underlying carriers have
denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that
certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their policies
have been exhausted.

In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier seeks a
declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not
provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the
Company. The carrier also asserts a claim for reimbursement of
defense costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on
the Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims.

Imperial Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells exterior and
interior finishing wall coatings and mortar products for the
construction industry. The Company also buys and resells building
materials from other manufacturers. The Company is based in
Pompano Beach, Fla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Liabilities Still at $13.56MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were at US$13,563,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
13, 2009.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$13,509,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009, the same as
for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008.

American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division makes adhesive-coated,
pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials
during handling and storage. The Company's Congoleum unit, which
makes resilient sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection amid asbestos-related suits. The Company is
based in Wellesley Hills, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,218 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
1,218 pending claims involving 1,773 individuals as of Sept. 30,
2009.

The Company was a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and
distributors of asbestos containing products in 1,257 pending
claims involving 1,812 individuals as of June 30, 2009. (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 11, 2009)

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded
171 new claims, 20 settlements, and 202 dismissals. During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 356 new claims, 13
settlements, and 434 dismissals.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009 were US$5.1 million (US$900,000
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008), all of which were paid by
the Company's insurance carriers, as were the related defense
costs.

The Company has first-layer excess umbrella policies with several
insurers, which include coverage for the Company's asbestos
related liabilities (the "Umbrella Coverage").

In addition to coverage available under the Umbrella Coverage,
the Company has additional excess liability insurance policies
that should provide further coverage if and when limits of
certain policies within the Umbrella Coverage exhaust.

American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division makes adhesive-coated,
pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials
during handling and storage. The Company's Congoleum unit, which
makes resilient sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection amid asbestos-related suits. The Company is
based in Wellesley Hills, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BJ Services Still Facing Suits in Miss. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain predecessors of BJ Services Company, along with numerous
other defendants, are still defendants in asbestos lawsuits filed
in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi
since August 2004.

These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging
that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and
seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness,
negligence, and strict liability; all based upon the status of
the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers.

The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying
the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing
products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this
process, about 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer. Amended lawsuits were filed by
four individuals against the Company and the remainder of the
original claims (114) was dismissed.

Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the Company as an
employer or manufacturer of asbestos-containing products so the
Company was thereby dismissed. Subsequently an individual from
one of these lawsuits brought his own action against the Company.
As a result, the Company is currently named as a Jones Act
employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits.

Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Company. To date, the Company has
been successful in obtaining dismissals of such successor cases
without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some
remain pending at the present time.

BJ Services Company provides pressure pumping and oilfield
services for the petroleum industry. The Company is based in
Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to be a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim
resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The
Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of
the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures and sells
horticultural and turf products. Its garden and indoor plant care
items include grass seeds, fertilizers, herbicides, potting
soils, and related tools. Brand names include Ortho, Miracle-Gro,
Hyponex, and Turf Builder. The Company is based in Marysville,
Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue
to be defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Nov. 24, 2009.

Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets water
infrastructure, flow control and piping component system products
for use in water distribution networks and water treatment
facilities. The Company is based in Atlanta.

                           *********

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  * * *