CAR_Public/101029.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 214

                             Headlines

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee
ALTERNATIVE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles FLSA Class Action for $2.33MM
AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Overbilling Calif. Wireless Customers
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Enforce 2008 Injunction, Suit Claims

CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lease Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending
CONOPCO INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Advertising
DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Reverses Class Action Decision
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Wellbutrin Suit Loses Class Certification Bid

GLOBAL CONNECT: Sued for Misrepresenting Minutes in Phone Cards
HALIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
HALLIBURTON CO: Plaintiffs' Plea Referred to Solicitor General
HERALD SUN: Bindi Cole Joins Racial Discrimination Class Action
HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit

HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut
HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Alaska Tradelane Remains Stayed
HORIZON LINES: Only Puerto Rice Antitrust Claims Remain
HORIZON LINES: Appeal on Dismissed Securities Suit Pending

HORIZON LINES: Final Approval Hearing Set for November 18
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Against DePuy On the Rise
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Advises Mitigation of DePuy Recall Damages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces GBP350 Mln Class Action Over DePuy
KOHLER CO: Recalls 10 Frameless by-Pass Bath Doors

MEMBERWORKS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Racketeering Suit
PEET & CO: Further Defendant Added to Class Action Over Landfill
POSSIBILITIES COUNSELING: Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
QUAKER OATS: Claims Narrowed in Chewy Bars Class Suit
REFCO INC: Plaintiff Lawyers in Securities Suit Seek $50MM Fee

SANFORD BROWN: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit Seek Class Certification
SNAPNAMES.COM: Settles Class Action Lawsuit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Leonelli" Suit Over AirTran Merger
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Frohman" Suit in Carson City
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Church" Suit in Clark County

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motions to Consolidate Four Suits Pending
STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
SYNGENTA CROP: Seeks Ruling on Atrazine Discovery Order
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Sued Over Mandatory Tip Distribution Policy
UNITED AIRLINES: Suit Complains About Automated Ticket Kiosks

ZYNGA GAME: Faces Third Suit for Invasion of Privacy
ZYNGA GAME: Faces Fourth Suit for Invasion of Privacy


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Ind. Records $563MM Settlement at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $3.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.658B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $1.34BB Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Unit Still Party to Coverage Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Continues to be Party to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc, Units Still Party to Claims in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $48MM Litigation Costs at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $724MM Sept. 30 NARCO Receivable

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Strikes Deal in Travelers Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 21,326 Unresolved Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix, NARCO Liability at $1.69BB at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Still Involved in AMSF's Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monadnock Waldorf Penalized for AHERA Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Court Reverses Ruling in Robinson Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Posts $15MM Claims Provision at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $841MM for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 65,441 Open Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Case Still Subject to Appeals in Calif.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Baccus Case v. Crane Settled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Dennis Woodard Decision Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Mulls Appeal in Nelson, Bell Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $75.7MM for Settlement, Defense

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $651.47MM Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $166MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Reserves $54MM at Sept. 30 for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,400 Open Cases Ongoing Against Chicago Bridge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Pending Against Olin Corp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Quaker Chem. Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Badger Meter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 510 Lawsuits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Faces 509 Exposure Actions at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Sues Chevron in Texas Over Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holland-on-Sea Clerk's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gibson Family Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roscommon Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Brainerd, Jackson Gym Costs $350,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Summary Judgment Bid OK'd in Faddish Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Unit Facing 33 Filter Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 17,000 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Pays $40.7MM for Claims in July 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Casualty Case Ongoing v. BorgWarner

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Flowserve Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.13BB for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Posts $3.7MM CAROs at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boylston Plant Manager Fined for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Edison Summary Judgment OK'd in Lindemann

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Ford Motor's Bid in Anderson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Yorker Fails to Conduct Proper Inspection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School District Has Grant to Remove Flooring
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Kesteven Dist. Council Issues Safety Advice


                             *********

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc., continues to defend a class-action suit styled Curtis
v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-448, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., was filed in November 2006 by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring
plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance
premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain
medical procedures and prescription drugs.

Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans
violate their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and
argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a
plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but
indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of
Sept. 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009.  In
June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory
jury at trial.  Trial in the matter was held over eight days
commencing Sept. 22, 2009 and ending on Oct. 1, 2009 in federal
court in Knoxville, Tennessee, before the Honorable Thomas
Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.

At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing
briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same.

Post trial briefing was submitted on Dec.4, 2009; however, no
schedule was set for handing down a decision.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq.
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: 518-463-7501
          Facsimile: 518-463-7502
          E-mail: katapano@gmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Telephone: 804-788-8629
          Facsimile: 804-343-4794
          E-mail: jwoods@hunton.com


ALTERNATIVE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles FLSA Class Action for $2.33MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, writing for Wage & Hour, reports when piece-rate
workers work more than 40 hours, the Fair Labor Standards Act has
developed a formula for determining and computing their overtime
pay.  It is first essential, however, to realize that such workers
are due overtime and to understand that workers who work "with
their hands" such as mechanics or technicians, are entitled to
overtime.

The failure to comprehend these truisms has been demonstrated in a
class action involving satellite television technicians, where a
federal judge has just confirmed a $2.33 million settlement in an
overtime collective action for such employees in Wisconsin and
Michigan.  The case is entitled Wilcox v. Alternative
Entertainment, Inc. and was filed in the Western District of
Wisconsin.

The satellite installers claimed overtime and also alleged that
their wages suffered improper deductions.  The workers claimed
that they were paid per installation, which is a piece rate, but
when they worked in excess of forty hours, they received no
additional compensation.  Thus, their theory is not only were they
not paid overtime, but there were weeks when they worked so many
hours in that particular week that their hourly rate did not even
meet the federal minimum wage standard.

To add supposed insult to alleged injury, the workers also charge
that the Company improperly deducted monies for poor workmanship,
lost/stolen property or damage to the property of the homeowner
where the satellite dish was being installed.  Not only was there
no written authorization to do so, but the law in many States is
clear that such deductions are illegal (although the employer may
take disciplinary action against the offending employee).

There are approximately 900 employees who might be involved in the
class.  Given that figure, the potential liability is/was
geometrical, as the settlement shows.  Significantly, the judge
awarded an attorneys' fees award of $776,666.  This is the other
big danger in FLSA class actions -- the law is a fee shifting
statute, meaning that the employer must pay the plaintiffs'
attorney fees, which (as here) is often a large sum.

There has been a sharp rise in lawsuits in the cable and satellite
industries.  The lesson to learn is that technicians or installers
or similarly titled employees are non-exempt and if they work in
excess of forty hours, they are owed overtime, regardless of the
mode of their compensation (e.g. piece-rate, hourly, commission).


AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Overbilling Calif. Wireless Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kip Nelson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 10-cv-04802 (N.D. Calif. October 22,
2010), accuses the wireless telecommunications provider of
wrongfully assessing interstate services for the funding of the
Cal-USF program, thus causing California AT&T customers to be
overbilled, in violation of the Communications act, the FCC's
Truth in Billing Requirements, and California's Unfair Competition
Law.

To promote universal telecommunication service in low-income,
rural, and other high cost areas, the Federal Communications
Communications Commission has created the federal Universal Fund.
To fund the Fed-USF, the FCC assesses telecommunications
companies' revenues from interstate (and international)
telecommunications services.  Telecommunications companies pass
along these costs via line item charges on their customers'
telephone bills.  States can implement their own Universal Service
programs (within the State only) but cannot rely on or burden the
funding of the Fed-USF.  Thus, state Universal Service programs
can be funded by assessing intrastate services, but cannot be
funded by assessing interstate telecommunications services.
California has a Universal Service program which is funded by
assessing intrastate services only.

Mr. Nelson, who pays AT&T a monthly fee to be able to make
wireless calls from a cellular telephone to persons within
California, to persons in other states, and to persons in other
countries, says AT&T overbills its California customers by
assessing California end-User Surcharges based on the same
telecommunications services revenue streams assessed for the
Fed-USF.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all triable claims, and
is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  ajd@girardgibbs.com
                  ds@girardgibbs.com


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended
complaint alleging violation of federal securities law, according
to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On March 19, 2010, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the company and certain of its current and
former officers entitled Casula v. athenahealth, Inc. et al, Civil
Action No. 1:10-cv-10477.

On June 3, 2010, the court appointed Waterford Township General
Employees Retirement System as the lead plaintiff.  On Aug. 2,
2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading
statements through press releases, statements by senior
management, and SEC filings.  The alleged false and misleading
statements concern, among other things, the amortization period
for deferred implementation revenues.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Oct. 1, 2010.

athenahealth, Inc. -- http://www.athenahealth.com/-- is a leading
provider of Internet-based business services for physician
practices.  athenahealth's service offerings are based on
proprietary web-native practice management and electronic health
record (EHR) software, a continuously updated payer knowledge-
base, integrated back-office service operations, and automated and
live patient communication services.


BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Enforce 2008 Injunction, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, 15 named
plaintiffs claim Attorney General Jerry Brown has refused to
enforce a 2008 injunction ordering Bank of America and affiliates
to cure their "predatory lending practices" in "hundreds of
thousands of unconscionable loans."  The homebuyers say Mr. Brown
caved in to mortgage lenders, including BofA predecessor
Countrywide Home Loans, and "refuses to further enforce flagrant
violations of Real Parties in Interest to the Stipulated
Judgment."

The proposed class in Superior Court covers Californians whose
residential mortgages, secured by their homes, are "serviced by
Real Parties in Interest because of their purchase of Countrywide
Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., and Spectrum
Lending."

The Real Parties in Interest include Bank of America, which bought
Countrywide and Spectrum after they collapsed, and BofA
affiliates.

"On or about October 20, 2008, Real Parties in Interest entered
into a Stipulated Judgment and Injunction with respondent Edmund
G. Brown Jr., attorney general of California . . . acknowledging
liability for a scheme of predatory lending practices," according
to the complaint.  "Which lending practices have resulted in
hundreds of thousands of unconscionable loans being provided to
person[s] such as petitioners.

"The Judgment required substantive acts by the Real Parties in
Interest to reverse the foreseeable consequences to the borrowers
who had been given the unconscionable loans, including but not
limited to loan modifications, reversal of interest, elimination
or [sic: recte of] adjustable rate mortgage payment plans (ARM),
in exchange for 30 year fixed mortgage.

"The Judgment specifically excluded a provisions wherein
individuals would have a private right to enforce its terms and
the only entity that could enforce the terms and or determine that
the Real Parties in Interest were in compliance with the terms of
the Judgment were respondent Edmund G. Brown Jr., attorney
general.  Notwithstanding numerous requests by petitioners and
other similar[ly] situated citizens of California, respondent
Edmund G. Brown Jr., attorney general, refuses to further enforce
the flagrant violations of Real Parties in Interest to the
Stipulated Judgment.  In particular, Real Parties in Interest in
the matter of Farmet vs. Countrywide Home Loans (S.D. Cal. 2009)
2009 WL 189025 successfully argued that Californians had no right
to loan term modifications and no private right to enforce said
right, notwithstanding the Stipulated Judgment."

The Stipulated Judgment and Injunction, signed by Superior Court
Judge Richard Wolfe, is attached to the complaint.

Plaintiffs in the new complaint are represented by:

          Moses S. Hall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MOSES S. HALL
          2651 East Chapman Ave.
          Fullerton, CA 92831
          Telephone: (714) 738-4830

They seek writ of mandamus.


CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lease Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana on September 29, 2010, granted a motion to the
defendants to dismiss in favor of Jones Walker clients, Chesapeake
Louisiana L.P., Petrohawk Properties, L.P., Red River Services,
LLC, and Delta Lands Exploration, Inc. in the case of HMB
Interests, et al. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P., et al.  This case
was a putative class action brought on behalf of all lessors who
entered into mineral leases between July 1, 2006, and June 30,
2008, in those parishes in Northwest Louisiana overlying the
Haynesville Shale formation.  Michael B. Donald, Joshua A. Norris,
Nicole M. Duarte and other members of the Jones Walker Houston
office represented these natural gas operators and land services
companies in this action in which the mineral lessors sought
rescission of their oil, gas and mineral leases based on their
alleged error as to the possible presence of the Haynesville Shale
formation beneath their property.

The court agreed with Jones Walker's argument that any such error
did not provide a legally sufficient basis for rescission because
it did not relate to the "cause" or a "substantial quality" of the
mineral leases, which were entered, as noted by the Court,
"specifically for the purpose of allowing the Defendants to
explore and exploit their land for oil and gas."  The Court
rejected Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the Haynesville
Shale as something different than what it is -- i.e., "minerals
for which Plaintiffs negotiated a mineral lease."  Accordingly,
the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for error, as well as any
claims for "lesion beyond moiety."

The Court's substantive ruling in this action follows on the heels
of an equally significant procedural ruling in which the Court
upheld the existence of jurisdiction over the action under the
Class Action Fairness Act, a relatively recent enactment providing
for federal jurisdiction over putative class actions in certain
circumstances.  In that ruling, the court agreed with Jones
Walker's arguments that the Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy their
burden of proving the existence of an exception to CAFA
jurisdiction.

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre L.L.P. --
http://www.joneswalker.com/-- with more than 300 attorneys,
provides a comprehensive range of legal services to a national and
international corporate client base, many in highly regulated
industries through offices in Alabama, Arizona, the District of
Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas.

Contact:

          Jill M. Joffrion, Esq.
          Telephone: 225-248-3575
          E-mail: jjoffrion@joneswalker.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the plaintiff on the denial of class certification
in a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in California
remains pending.

A lawsuit has been filed against the company in California
alleging violations of state laws regarding employee record-
keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and related
practices with respect to its employees.  The case originally
sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf of a
purported class of the company's present and former employees.

The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the
purported class and the California Court of Appeals affirmed that
decision, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an
action by a single plaintiff.

The plaintiff has appealed the court's denial of class
certification, and the appeal remains pending.

No additional information regarding the matter was disclosed in
the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com/--
operates fast casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants serving
burritos, tacos, bowls and salads.


CONOPCO INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Conopco dba Unilever dba
Breyers pushes its "Smooth & Dreamy 1/2 Fat All Natural Ice Cream"
as "All Natural," but they contain alkalized cocoa with potassium
carbonate, a synthetic ingredient, according to a federal class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Denmon-Clark v. Conopco, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-07898 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/IceCream.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & CORDES LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  edoyle@stemberfeinstein.com


DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Reverses Class Action Decision
-----------------------------------------------------
Barak A. Bassman, Esq., Stephen G. Harvey, Esq., and Laurence Z.
Shiekman, Esq., at Pepper Hamilton LLP, report that, as previously
reported in the firm's August 9, 2010 Client Alert, "Eleventh
Circuit Decision Threatens to Send More Class Actions Back to
State Court," on July 19, 2010, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit
held in Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., that federal court
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act over a class
action asserting state law claims required that, in addition to
having minimal diversity (one plaintiff diverse from any
defendant), at least 100 class members, and aggregated claims of
class members in excess of $5 million, at least one plaintiff must
have an individual claim that meets the amount in controversy
requirement of at least $75,000.

We noted that the holding seemed at odds with CAFA's purpose,
which is to provide for federal jurisdiction of putative state law
class actions seeking in excess of $5 million, even if (as in many
consumer class actions) individual class members' damages were not
substantial.

Upon further consideration, the same panel of the Eleventh Circuit
reconsidered and vacated the decision and replaced it with a new
decision on October 15, 2010.  In the new decision, the court held
that the district court had jurisdiction over the class action
because "[t]here is no requirement in a class action brought
originally or on removal under CAFA that any individual
plaintiff's claim exceed $75,000."

With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit comes into line with the
other courts that have addressed the issue.  The rule should now
be clear -- CAFA jurisdiction requires only minimal diversity, at
least 100 putative class members, and claims in the aggregate of
more than $5 million.

The Class Action Reporter covered the 11th Circuit's ruling on
July 23, 2010.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Wellbutrin Suit Loses Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports a federal judge has refused to grant
certification for a Wellbutrin class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of consumers who were allegedly forced to pay higher prices
for the antidepressant due to GlaxoSmithKline's attempts to keep a
generic form of the medication off the market.

The class action lawsuit over Wellbutrin was brought by the Health
& Welfare Plan for the Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 in Mobile,
Alabama, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs sought class action status on behalf
of all individual consumers and more than 20,000 third-parties,
such as health care plans and insurers.

The lawsuit claimed that Glaxo was attempting to delay the release
of generic Wellbutrin versions through frivolous patent lawsuits
against generic drug makers.  Earlier this month, U.S. District
Judge Lawrence F. Stengel declined to give the lawsuit class
action status, saying that it would be impossible for plaintiffs
to prove that the class members were financially injured by
Glaxo's actions.

Judge Stengel determined that it would be impossible to determine
which customers would have exhibited brand loyalty to
GlaxoSmithKline, meaning that they would continue to buy brand-
name Wellbutrin even after generic versions were released.
Without being able to determine who would buy generic versions and
who would not, the plaintiffs do not have a class action case, he
ruled.

Wellbutrin (bupropion HCI), which is manufactured by
GlaxoSmithKline, was first approved by FDA as an antidepressant in
December 1985.  The drug was pulled a year later due to the high
number of seizures associated with Wellbutrin side effects, but it
was reintroduced in 1989 after federal reviewers determined that
the seizures were dose specific and lowered the daily dosage of
the drug.

Wellbutrin has come under closer scrutiny recently after a study
published in May in the American Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynecology suggested that there may be an increased risk of heart
birth defects from Wellbutrin when the medication is taken during
pregnancy.

Researchers found that mothers who were given Wellbutrin in their
first trimester had double the chance of giving birth to a child
with a congenital heart problem than mothers who did not take the
drug.  However, they were not able to establish a cause-and-effect
relationship between the drug and the birth defects.


GLOBAL CONNECT: Sued for Misrepresenting Minutes in Phone Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Global Connect
Telecommunications targets poor people and immigrants by
misrepresenting the minutes available and the undisclosed fees on
its prepaid phone calling cards, a class action claims in Superior
Court.


HALIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company remains a defendant in more than 319 class-
action complaints arising out of the incident involving Deepwater
Horizon, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The semi-submersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on
April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that
began on April 20.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean
Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo/MC252 exploration well in
Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the lease
operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. Crude oil flowing from the well site
has spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico
and has reached the United States Gulf Coast.  Efforts to contain
the flow of hydrocarbons from the well are being led by the United
States government and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their
affiliates.  In addition, there were eleven fatalities and a
number of injuries as a result of the Macondo Well incident.  The
cause of the explosion, fire, and resulting oil spill is being
investigated by numerous industry participants, governmental
agencies, and Congressional committees.

The company performed a variety of services on the Macondo well,
including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling,
measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services.
The company had completed the cementing of the final production
casing string in accordance with BP Exploration's requirements
approximately 20 hours prior to the Macondo Well incident.

Currently, the company has been named along with other
unaffiliated defendants in more than 319 class-action complaints
involving pollution damage claims and in 27 suits involving
multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal
injuries arising out of the Macondo well incident.  The majority
of these suits are consolidated in a multi-district litigation
proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The pollution damage complaints generally allege, among other
things, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, and
potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution
and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory,
and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.  The wrongful
death and other personal injury complaints generally allege
negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory
damages, including unspecified economic damages and punitive
damages.  The company has retained counsel and are investigating
and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages
asserted, and the company's respective defenses to all of these
claims.

The company says that additional lawsuits may be filed against.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a
variety of services and products to customers in the energy
industry related to the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas.  The company serves oil and natural gas
companies throughout the world and operates under two segments:
the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.  It conducts business worldwide in
approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its
divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North
America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.


HALLIBURTON CO: Plaintiffs' Plea Referred to Solicitor General
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has referred to the Solicitor General, The
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund's writ of certiorari on
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirming the
denial of class certification in a consolidated suit against
Halliburton Company.  The Solicitor General will be the one to
issue an opinion on whether the Supreme Court should accept the
case or not, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

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

In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions
were filed against the company.  Several of those lawsuits also
named as defendants several of the company's present or former
officers and directors.  The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon the company in April 2003.  As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund v. Halliburton Company,
et al.  The company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of
2004.

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

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

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

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007
the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual
defendants other than the company's Chief Executive Officer.  The
court ordered that the case proceed against Halliburton and its
CEO.

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

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

The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.  Both parties filed
briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December of
2009.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
denying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court.  In early October 2010, the Supreme Court
neither granted nor denied the Writ of Certiorari but referred it
to the Solicitor General for an opinion on whether the Court
should accept the case or not.  The Solicitor General will confer
with interested agencies such as the SEC, meet with the parties,
and develop its recommendation, which it will provide to the
Court.  Then, the Court will decide if it will hear the appeal.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a
variety of services and products to customers in the energy
industry related to the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas.  The company serves oil and natural gas
companies throughout the world and operates under two segments:
the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.  It conducts business worldwide in
approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its
divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North
America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.


HERALD SUN: Bindi Cole Joins Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goya Bennett, writing for The Age, reports Altona North indigenous
artist Bindi Cole has joined a class action against Herald Sun
columnist Andrew Bolt over alleged racial discrimination.

Ms. Cole is among eight applicants, including former ATSIC
chairman Geoff Clark, suing Mr. Bolt, his employer and its Web
site.

The case, which is listed to be heard in the Federal Court from
December 13-17, stemmed from two columns he wrote last year.

In the first column, published in the paper in April under the
headline "It's so hip to be black" and on his blog under the
headline "White is the new black", Mr. Bolt listed light or white-
skinned people who identified themselves as Aboriginal and
suggested their choosing to do so was proof of "a whole new
fashion in academia, the arts and professional activism".  Ms.
Cole and the other applicants are seeking an order restricting
future publication of material containing similar content.  They
also seek removal of the two columns.

The statement of claim sets out the Aboriginal heritage of each
applicant, identifies them as having "fairer rather than darker
skin," and asserts that each was "reasonably likely to be
offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated" by Mr. Bolt's
writings.

Ms. Cole appeared in this newspaper in July after being nominated,
for the second time, for the Telstra National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Art Award.

Ms. Cole, who has been told by her lawyer not to speak to the
media, lived with her Aboriginal paternal grandmother -- a member
of the stolen generations -- from when she was nine to her early
teens.  On a Tourism Victoria website, she is quoted as saying:
"Nan always told me, 'You're Aboriginal and you should always tell
people that you are'."

Herald and Weekly Times editor-in-chief Phil Gardner said: 'We
take this claim very seriously.

"However, neither the Herald Sun nor Andrew believe that they have
breached the Racial Discrimination Act or acted inappropriately at
any time.  The Herald Sun and Andrew will vigorously defend free
speech and Andrew's right to express opinions."


HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to defend the remaining
claims in the matter Allen, et al., v. Honeywell Retirement
Earnings Plan.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million and the
maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims --
alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits
of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the plan was
amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in accordance
with the terms of the plan -- was capped at $500 million.

Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or will
be paid from the company's pension plan.  In October 2009, the
Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell
Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the
calculation of benefits.

The company says it continues to expect to prevail on the
remaining claims in light of applicable law and our substantial
affirmative defenses, which have not yet been considered fully by
the Court.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Honeywell International -- http://www.honeywell.com/-- is a
Fortune 100 diversified technology and manufacturing leader,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.
Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell's shares are traded on
the New York, London, and Chicago Stock Exchanges.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., defends a consolidated suit
alleging that it engaged in a conspiracy with other filter
manufacturers to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers
for after-market automotive 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 twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
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.  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.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified
Honeywell on Jan. 21, 2010 that it has officially closed its
investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto
filters industry.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The consolidated lawsuit is S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 2008-cv-00475 (Conn.)
(Arterton, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq.
          UPDIKE, KELLY & SPELLACY, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Telephone: 860-548-2600
          E-mail: krcallahan@uks.com


HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint
relating to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam
tradelanes remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's
October 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into
possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping
business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation,
58 purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company
and other domestic shipping carriers.  Each of the Class Action
Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the
various domestic ocean carriers.  The complaints allege price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed
in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, 19 in the
District of Puerto Rico, 12  in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

Twenty-five of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping
services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes and were consolidated
into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of Washington.

On March 20, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation.  On Aug. 18, 2009,
the District Court for the Western District of Washington entered
an order dismissing, without prejudice, the Hawaii and Guam MDL
litigation.  In dismissing the complaint, however, the plaintiffs
were granted 30 days to amend their complaint.

After several extensions, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint on May 28, 2010.

On July 12, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss is pending.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Alaska Tradelane Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit against Horizon Lines, Inc.,
relating to the Alaska tradelane remains stayed.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into
possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping
business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation,
58 purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company
and other domestic shipping carriers.  Each of the Class Action
Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the
various domestic ocean carriers.  The complaints allege price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed
in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, 19 in the
District of Puerto Rico, 12 in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

One district court case remains in the District of Alaska,
relating to the Alaska tradelane.

The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to stay discovery in
the Alaska litigation.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Only Puerto Rice Antitrust Claims Remain
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has
dismissed all counts in the complaint against Horizon Lines, Inc.,
except those under Puerto Rico antitrust laws, according to the
company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010.

On Oct. 19, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, other domestic shipping carriers and certain
individuals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico.

The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals
(indirect purchasers) who allege to have paid inflated prices for
retail goods imported to Puerto Rico as a result of alleged price-
fixing of the defendants in violation of the Sherman Act and
various provisions of Puerto Rico law.  The purported plaintiffs
are seeking treble monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On April 9, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

The District Court has dismissed all counts in the complaint
except those under Puerto Rico antitrust laws.  The District Court
has certified to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court the question of
whether the Puerto Rico antitrust statue applies to interstate
commerce.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Appeal on Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the dismissal of a securities class
action lawsuit against Horizon Lines, Inc., remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the
company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010.

On Dec. 31, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit was filed by
the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System naming the
company and six current and former employees, including the
company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants.

The complaint purported to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the company made material misstatements and omissions
in connection with alleged price-fixing in the company's shipping
business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the
motion to dismiss on Nov. 13, 2009, with leave to file an amended
complaint.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 23,
2009, and the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on Feb. 12, 2010.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted
with prejudice on May 18, 2010.  On June 15, 2010, the plaintiff
appealed the Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Final Approval Hearing Set for November 18
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has set a
final approval hearing on the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated suit relating to ocean shipping services in the
Puerto Rico tradelane, for Nov. 18, 2010, according to the
company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into
possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping
business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation,
58 purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company
and other domestic shipping carriers.  Each of the Class Action
Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the
various domestic ocean carriers.  The complaints allege price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed
in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, 19 in the
District of Puerto Rico, 12 in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

Thirty-two of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping
services in the Puerto Rico tradelane and were consolidated into a
single multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of
Puerto Rico.

On June 11, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the named plaintiff class representatives in the Puerto Rico
MDL litigation.  Under the settlement agreement, the company has
agreed to pay $20.0 million and to certain base-rate freezes to
resolve claims for alleged antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico
tradelane.  The company paid $5.0 million into an escrow account
and is required to pay an additional $5.0 million into the escrow
account by Oct. 10, 2010 pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement.  The remaining $10.0 million is required to be paid
within five business days after final approval of the settlement
agreement by the district court.

The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement
provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico
trade with the company as of the effective date of the settlement
agreement would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to
have their "base rates" frozen for a period of two years.  The
base-rate freeze would run for two years from the expiration of
the contract in effect on the effective date of the settlement
agreement.  All class members would be eligible to share in the
$20.0 million cash component, but only contract customers of the
company would be eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of
receiving cash.  The company has the right to terminate the
settlement agreement under certain circumstances.

On July 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement in the Puerto Rico MDL
litigation.

After several hearings, the district court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement on July 12, 2010.  The
settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the Court.

Through Oct. 8, 2010, the company has paid $10.0 million into an
escrow account and is required to pay the remaining $10.0 million
within five business days after final approval of the settlement
agreement by the District Court.

On Sept. 15, 2010, notices of the Puerto Rico settlement were
mailed to class members, who have 60 days to respond.  The Court
has set Nov. 18, 2010 for a hearing to decide whether the
settlement should be finally approved.  Some class members may
elect to opt-out of the settlement in the response to the class
notice they have received.  The class members that opt-out of the
settlement may bring separate claims against the Company.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Against DePuy On the Rise
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsome Law Firm reports over a dozen individual and class action
lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts across
America over DePuy Orthopaedics' defective recalled hip
replacement systems. Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a motion in
September 2010 to consolidate the lawsuits into a multidistrict
litigation in a New Jersey Federal Court.  Depuy attorneys filed
an objection to the motion, preferring to stage the trials closer
to company headquarters in Indiana, a Wisconsin Law Journal Web
site reports.

The number of plaintiffs filing claims and/or joining class action
lawsuits continues to rise as the recall gains more press
coverage.  Patients are finding out that they may suffer toxic
metal poisoning even if their implant has not yet presented any
difficulties.  All patients with the DePuy hip replacements
implanted between 2003 and 2010 are urged to contact their
physician and an attorney to discuss their rights.

According to the Spark, DePuy pulled the hip replacement implants
off the market near the end of 2009.  "The company had stated that
their actions were attributed to declining sales, and that they
were not recalling the systems," the article reports.  However, in
August of 2010, DePuy announced a full recall.  The devices have
demonstrated a failure rate of about 13%.  Plaintiffs in many
cases allege that DePuy and the FDA knew about the device's
defects long before the recall, but they failed to warn patients
and continued selling the device.

The motion to consolidate the cases into multidistrict legislation
is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides on November 18,
2010.  If the motion is granted, patients will be allowed to
either accept a settlement agreement amount if one is reached.  If
they choose not to accept the settlement, they still retain the
right to have their case tried in the original court in which it
was filed.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Advises Mitigation of DePuy Recall Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rottenstein Law Group is advising those affected by the DePuy
hip replacement recall to mitigate their damages rather than
expect a windfall from litigation.  The firm maintains a
comprehensive informational Web site at
http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com/

Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group,
recommends that any recipient of a recalled replacement hip device
manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics do whatever he or she can to
reduce the harm caused by the faulty, recalled implants.
"Generally speaking, an injured party has a responsibility to take
reasonable actions to minimize the effect of another's wrongdoing,
what the law calls 'mitigation of damages.'  In this case, that
means speaking to a doctor as soon as possible.  Putting off
necessary treatment will not bring more compensation."

In August, DePuy Orthopaedics, a Johnson & Johnson company,
announced a global hip replacement recall of two devices: the ASR
Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR XL Acetabular System.  Each
unit replaces a worn or weakened part of the hip. Many orthopedic
doctors believe that the units were poorly designed.  The implants
can generate debris from wear, causing inflammation and tissue
damage in recipients.  A total of 93,000 persons worldwide had an
ASR device implanted.  A graphical "snapshot" of the DePuy hip
replacement recall can be found at
http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com/case-snapshot

"DePuy Orthopaedics has a history of not taking responsibility for
its products," Ms. Rottenstein observed.  "For example, even
before this incident DePuy had concealed from consumers important
information about a knee replacement product it manufactured. Now
it has become evident that DePuy again put its profits before the
safety of consumers.  Hundreds of complaints were lodged with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration before DePuy company recalled
the ASR systems."

Ms. Rottenstein advises any recipient of a recalled ASR device not
only to consult a doctor immediately but also to "document every
aspect of both your pain and your treatment.  Keep your own notes,
in addition to the notes your doctor will take.  And do not give
information to DePuy or sign any form giving DePuy permission to
view your medical records, even if your doctor suggests that you
do."  Victims of DePuy's malfeasance might find their candid
communications to DePuy used as admissions against them in court,
warns Ms. Rottenstein.  She notes that DePuy has no duty of
confidentiality to people who call its "help line," for example,
and is free to use any and all information obtained for the
company's own benefit in litigation.

Ms. Rottenstein also recommends that anyone searching online for a
lawyer with whom to discuss the DePuy hip replacement recall read
the fine print on a Web site, including any Terms of Use,
Disclaimer, and/or Privacy Policy, before submitting any
information.  Otherwise, she says, the user risks not just
agreeing to receive spam and having his or her time wasted while
waiting for a case evaluation that might never take place, but
also revealing information without the protection of any duty of
confidentiality.  Ms. Rottenstein recommends that those exploring
their legal options with regard to the recalled DePuy implants
visit only Web sites operated by actual law firms, such as the
Rottenstein Law Group's DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Web site at
http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com/

                  About The Rottenstein Law Group

The Rottenstein Law Group is a New York-based law firm that
represents clients in mass tort actions.  The firm was recently
founded by Rochelle Rottenstein, who has more than two decades of
experience as a lawyer, to represent clients in consumer product
injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits in a compassionate
manner.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces GBP350 Mln Class Action Over DePuy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sify News reports Johnson & Johnson is facing a multi-million-
pound legal claim after more than 10,000 patients in Britain were
told their hip replacement operations needed to be reversed.

Many patients have been in excruciating pain, with some unable to
walk since the operation.  Now some of those affected are
preparing a class action suit against Johnson & Johnson's
orthopaedic branch, DePuy, in a case which could cost the company
GBP350 million.

Over 10,000 patients have been recalled to hospital to have their
operations reviewed because components used to cushion and fix the
artificial joint were causing tumors and depositing toxic metal in
the blood, reports the Daily Mail.

Patients receiving the faulty ASR hip implant have experienced
agonizing pain as the metal fittings have worn away, releasing the
metals chromium and cobalt into the blood, and causing
inflammation and benign tumors to form.

Experts said although the metals are naturally present within the
body, tests showed some patients who had received a DePuy implant
had levels which were 100 times higher than normal.

In scientific tests, the metals have been linked with cancer, and
more than 1,000 people have had their operations reversed to rid
their bodies of faulty hip replacements.

A letter of claim will be sent to DePuy within weeks, according to
solicitors Leigh Day and Co, who are representing 78 patients in a
group action against the company.  Of those, 34 have already
undergone painful revision surgery to remove the implant.


KOHLER CO: Recalls 10 Frameless by-Pass Bath Doors
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wisc., announced a voluntary recall of
about 10 Kohler and Sterling Frameless by-pass bath doors.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The glass doors can shatter, posing a laceration hazard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Kohler and Sterling frameless by-pass bath
doors. By-pass doors consist of two panels that slide on a track
and overlap one another.  They can be identified by the tempering
date located on the bath door glass panel, which reads "080410" or
by the SAU (serial) number on the manufacturer's box.  SAU numbers
can be found on the white bar code label on the spine of the box
below the retail label.  The affected door models and SAU numbers
are:

                                                   These Locations
  Model Number   Description        Serial Number       Only
  ------------   -----------        -------------  ---------------

R702200-L-SHP   Kohler Fluence       SAU376TBX      Lowe's Stores:
                frameless bath door  SAU376TC3      # 1087-Folsom,
                with Bright Polished                Calif
                Silver finish and                   # 1538
                clear glass                         - Chantilly,
                                                    Va.

5425-59DR-G05   Sterling Finesse     SAU376MDZ     Lowe's Stores:
                Frameless bath door  SAU376MF8     # 526 -
                with Deep Bronze                   Asheville
                finish and clear                   , N.C.
                glass                              # 2338 -
                                                  Cincinnati, Oh

5425-59N-G69   Sterling Finesse      SAU376SS6    Home Depot
               frameless bath door   SAU376SSB    Stores:
               with Nickel metal                  # 119 -
               finish and Lake Mist               Augusta, Ga.
               Silk Screen pattern                # 4131 -
               GLASS                              Lancaster, Pa
                                                  # 4614 -
                                                  Virginia
                                                  Beach, Va.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11705.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States
and sold through four Lowes and three Home Depot stores nationwide
from August 2010 through September 2010 for about $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the doors and contact
Kohler for a free replacement door.  For more information, contact
Kohler Co. at (866) 782-6329 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.kohler.com/corp/pr/newscurrent.html


MEMBERWORKS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Racketeering Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a
racketeering class action accusing MemberWorks Inc. of tricking
people into buying discount club memberships.

Lead plaintiffs Preston and Rita Smith and Patricia Sanford
claimed that MWI, now called Vertrue Inc., lured them into annual
memberships when they purchased certain "bait products," such as
Tae-Bo fitness tapes or hair-removal products.

MWI telemarketers allegedly told them the company would send them
a "risk-free 30-day membership" to Essentials, a service that
purportedly offers discounts to Express, Victoria's Secret, TJ
Maxx, Pier One and other retailers.

After 30 days, the membership was extended to one year, and
consumers were automatically billed $72, or $6 per month, if they
didn't cancel when they received their membership kits in the
mail.

The plaintiffs said the membership kits were made to look like
junk mail, so consumers would toss them without cancelling.

A three-judge panel in Pasadena, Calif., ruled that the Smiths
failed to plead their case with enough specificity to survive
dismissal.

"The Smiths failed to allege which of them made any of the
telephone calls to purchase the various bait products and, thus,
who was a party to the alleged misrepresentations," Judge Diarmuid
O'Scannlain wrote.

He said Sanford lacks standing to pursue the federal complaint,
because she "bargained away" all claims in her settlement against
MWI in state court.

Judge O'Scannlain affirmed dismissal of the Smiths' wire and mail
fraud claims, along with their claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Unordered
Merchandise Statute, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

A copy of the Opinion in Sanford, et al. v. MemberWorks, Inc., et
al., No. 09-55502 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/glGc6

The Plaintiff-Appellants are represented by:

          Eric A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          Frank J. Janacek, Esq.
          Christopher Collins, Esq.
          Amanda M. Frame, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
                     (800) 449-4900

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MADDEN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216-522-9000

               - and -

          Artie Baran, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTIE BARAN, APC
          4545 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (858) 560-5600
          E-mail: artieb@baranlawoffices.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Darrel J. Hieber, Esq.
          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          Jennifer E. LaGrange, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-687-5000


PEET & CO: Further Defendant Added to Class Action Over Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Randall, writing for Cranbourne Leader, reports lawyers
for Brookland Greens residents have added a further defendant to
the class action over the Stevensons Rd landfill methane gas
fiasco.

At a directions hearing in the Supreme Court on October 15, claims
against Peet and Co Casey Land Syndicate were elevated by law firm
Slater and Gordon, joining the four original parties in the City
of Casey, the EPA, SITA Australia and LMS Generation.

The law firm also expanded its claim against the EPA.

Senior associate Manisha Blencowe said the amended statement of
claim was necessary because the matter was now going to trial.

Ms. Blencowe said the claim against the syndicate related to the
buffer zone that had been created around the landfill site at
Brookland Greens.

The additional claims against the EPA related to alleged failures
by the environmental body in exercising its powers to regulate the
landfill.

The syndicate is the owner and developer of the Brookland Greens
Estate.

In a statement, the syndicate denied any liability and stated it
would "vigorously defend all claims made against it".

The Supreme Court sanctioned a split trial to ensure claims would
not be held up by disputes between defendants.

The parties return to court on December 17.


POSSIBILITIES COUNSELING: Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Skelton, staff writer for Sun Journal, reports a Portland
law firm filed a class action lawsuit against Possibilities
Counseling in Cumberland County Superior Court on Monday and
another laid groundwork for its own class action suit in
Androscoggin County Superior Court.

Greg Hansel of Preti Flaherty said he would ask that his suit
against the Auburn mental health agency and its president be moved
from Cumberland County to Maine's Business and Consumer Court,
which handles large, complex issues.

Meanwhile, Adam Taylor of Taylor, McCormack & Frame, also of
Portland, sought to use Androscoggin County Superior Court in
Auburn, asking for intervenor status for his social work clients
in an existing lawsuit against Possibilities Counseling at 1120
Center St.

Mr. Taylor said 500-plus therapists and case managers are owed
more than $3 million by Possibilities.

In what might seem an unusual tact, an attorney for Possibilities'
President Wendy Bergeron said she "guardedly welcomes" the Taylor
suit.

"It will give that group the opportunity to hear with one ear and
speak with one voice," said John Geismar at Norman, Hanson &
DeTroy.  "It's a business arrangement that's gone horribly wrong
and the clinicians are stuck in the middle."

Mr. Geismar couldn't be reached for comment on the Hansel suit,
which was announced just before 5:00 p.m. Monday.

Possibilities Counseling worked with hundreds of professionals
around the state treating some 10,000 patients.  It billed
insurance on the behalf of therapists and case managers, with
MaineCare its largest client.  Possibilities is being sued by
Affiliate Funding, a local business that fronted Possibilities
payroll funds each week while the state took weeks to reimburse
the company.  That arrangement ended in August; shortly after,
therapists and case managers stopped being paid, most of the
Possibilities staff quit and the state stepped in to issue a
conditional license.

Affiliate Funding is suing for damages, while in a counterclaim in
Androscoggin County Superior Court, Ms. Bergeron said it drove her
out of business.

Last Friday, Mr. Taylor filed the intervenor request on behalf of
56 social service workers.  That figure, he said, will keep
growing.

"We're going to be moving the court at some point in the not too
distant future, assuming our (intervenor) motion is granted, to
seek collective class action status," he said.

Mr. Taylor said no one is owed more than $20,000.  Most are owed
less than $3,000.

A decision on the intervenor request could be weeks away.  Lloyd
Martin, one of three attorneys at Laskoff & Associates
representing Affiliate Funding, declined comment Monday.

According to court records, Affiliate Funding, owned by Emile
Clavet and Kevin Dean, had a years long arrangement with Bergeron
and Possibilities, fronting payroll in exchange for a fee.  That
relationship soured in August, according to Ms. Bergeron's
counterclaim, when she refused to abruptly sell them the business.

Affiliate Funding has asked for a receiver to take over
Possibilities' books.  Ms. Bergeron has asked for an audit of her
books and those of Affiliate.  Both requests are in front of the
court.

Mr. Hansel at Preti Flaherty said he initiated his suit on behalf
of two Possibilities providers, both of whom live in Cumberland
County.

"We will seek to consolidate the cases in front of one judge.
Then, we will ask the court to certify the case as class action,"
he said.

Mr. Taylor said that having signed on more than one-quarter of the
potential class members, he had no plans to alter his own suit.

Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Brenda Harvey
is heading a forum Thursday night for former Possibilities'
affiliates addressing questions such as back pay at the University
of Maine at Augusta.  The forum is being held in Jewett Hall from
6 to 9:30 p.m.


QUAKER OATS: Claims Narrowed in Chewy Bars Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Anstoetter, Esq., and Madeleine McDonough, Esq., at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP, writing for the firm's Food & Beverage
Litigation Update, Issue No. 369, dated October 22, 2010, report
that a federal court in California has dismissed on preemption and
standing grounds a number of state-law claims against The Quaker
Oats Co. in a lawsuit alleging that the company falsely advertises
its Chewy Bars(R)as containing "0 grams trans fat" when the
ingredient list labeling includes hydrogenated vegetable oil.
Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-0502 (U.S. Dist. Ct.,
N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., decided October 14, 2010).  So ruling,
the court lifted a discovery stay order and scheduled a case
management conference for December 16, 2010.

The Class Action Reporter covered the filing of the lawsuit on
Feb. 10, 2010.

According to the Food & Beverage Litigation Update, the defendant
sought judgment on the pleadings at the outset of the action,
arguing that "the doctrines of express preemption, primary
jurisdiction, and Article III standing warrant immediate dismissal
of the entire case."  The court agreed to dismiss all state-law
deception claims involving the "0 grams trans fat" statement, the
"good source" of calcium and fiber statements and a statement that
the product contains whole grain oats but lacks high-fructose corn
syrup.  According to the court, as pleaded, these claims "seek to
impose a requirement in addition to what is mandated by federal
statutes and regulations and therefore fail on preemption
grounds."  Because the plaintiffs had not pleaded they were
competitors of Quaker Oats, the court also found that they lacked
standing to bring an unfair competition claim under the Lanham
Act.

The court will allow the plaintiffs to pursue claims pertaining to
"the term 'wholesome,' the 'smart choices made easy' declaration
[appearing on a decal], and depictions of oats, nuts, and
children."  The court determined that "[n]either the decal nor the
children are appropriately categorized as nutrient content claims,
and defendant's contention that the [Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act] preempts the charge that they are misleading is
without support.  The NLEA does not regulate 'front of the box'
symbols such as the smart choices decal or the photographs."
Because the Food and Drug Administration had not "developed even
an informal policy governing or defining the word 'wholesome,'"
the court also found that plaintiffs were not preempted from
litigating whether this statement was misleading.

The court rejected the defendant's contention that the decal,
"wholesome" language and depictions should be left to agency
consideration under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding
that "whether or not the 'smart choices made easy' decal, the
photographs of oats, nuts, and children in soccer uniforms, or the
term 'wholesome' are misleading -- do not entail technical
questions or require agency expertise."  Also rejected were
defendant's arguments that the plaintiffs did not establish injury
in fact because they had not alleged any health-related ailment
from their consumption of snacks with trans fats, the product
statements were non-actionable puffery, or that the plaintiffs
failed to plead their claims with sufficient particularity.

Among the claims that survived the motion for judgment on the
pleadings is that the "smart choices program itself is
'deceitful,' and is a product of an 'industry-funded initiative
created by a coalition of market giants.'"  The plaintiffs allege
that the decal is "'nutritionally suspect' and is designed to make
'highly processed foods appear as healthful as unprocessed
foods.'"

Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorneys assist food industry clients in
developing early assessment procedures that allow for quick
evaluation of potential liability and the most appropriate
response in the event of suspected product contamination or an
alleged food-borne safety outbreak.  The firm also counsels food
producers on labeling audits and other compliance issues, ranging
from recalls to facility inspections, subject to FDA, USDA and FTC
regulation.  SHB lawyers have served as general counsel for feed,
grain, chemical, and fertilizer associations and have testified
before state and federal legislative committees on agribusiness
issues.

For additional information on SHB's Agribusiness & Food Safety
capabilities, please contact:

          Mark Anstoetter, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          Telephone: 816-474-6550
          E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com

               - and -

          Madeleine McDonough, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          Telephone: 816-474-6550
                     202-783-8400
          E-mail: mmcdonough@shb.com


REFCO INC: Plaintiff Lawyers in Securities Suit Seek $50MM Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports, with the
sprawling, five-year-old Refco securities class action beginning
to wind down, plaintiffs lawyers are getting ready to start
counting their spoils.  According to a report from The Am Law
Litigation Daily, the lawyers will have plenty to count if their
$50 million request for fees and expenses is granted.

As the Lit Daily reports, onetime Refco auditor Grant Thornton
agreed to settle with plaintiffs in the case for $25 million on
Monday, bringing the total recovery for class members to about
$405 million.  That's a significant haul for lead class counsel
Grant & Eisenhofer and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, and
in a September 22 filing the firms asked the judge to decide their
share: The plaintiffs lawyers requested $40.8 million in fees and
$8.5 million in expenses, or about 12% of the class's total
recovery.  (The Lit Daily says the firms will likely request an
additional $4.5 million following approval of the Grant Thornton
settlement.)

In their fee request, the plaintiffs firms called the Refco case
"a prime example of large-scale, highly complex litigation."  They
added: "One need only peruse the voluminous briefing on the
defendants' twelve motions to dismiss, and on lead plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment, to see the many difficult
questions involved in this case.  These include, inter alia,
questions concerning the defendants' affirmative defenses to lead
plaintiffs' securities act claims; the allegations and evidence as
to scienter; and factual and legal disputes relating to reliance
and loss causation."

James Sabella of Grant & Eisenhofer told the Lit Daily that the
firms agreed to a 22% discount on the value of the 133,600 hours
they spent on the case because a $149 million settlement with
Refco's German bankers was achieved early in the litigation. He
said the firm's total recovery for class members represented more
than 40% of shareholders' $1 billion in losses.

A hearing on the firms' fee request was scheduled for Oct. 27 in
Manhattan federal district court.


SANFORD BROWN: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Sanford Brown College and its
corporate parent are asking a Madison County judge to certify a
class action suit.

In the meantime, Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack was set
to hear a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint filed by
defendants at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27.

Plaintiffs Jenna and Jessica Lilley, Candace Lindsey, Ashley
Cunningham and Cassandra Allen propose to lead a class of Sanford
Brown students who were allegedly misled about career paths the
schools' medical assistant degrees could lead to.

The second amended complaint, filed last month, includes claims
under the Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, consumer
fraud statute, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The proposed class would include all persons who enrolled at the
Sanford Brown College in Collinsville in the medical assistant
program from July 1, 2003 to the date of certification of the
class action.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
restitution of monies paid to the defendants, an injunction
barring the defendants from engaging in "unfair, immoral,
unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous acts," attorney's fees and
other relief.

A similar class action suit against Sanford Brown was also filed
in Missouri.

The class certification hearing is set Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m.

The motion to dismiss and the motion for class certification are
not available in the scanned documents of the case file at
present.

The defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint
last week.

In the motion, the defendants deny the claims.

They also offer affirmative defenses including that the plaintiffs
are barred by the statutes of limitations, failures to state
claims, the voluntary pay doctrine and educational malpractice
laws.

Sanford Brown and Career Education Corporation, its co-defendant,
also have counter claims pending against the lead plaintiffs for
unpaid tuition ranging from $588 to nearly $6,000.

Corey Sullivan and others represent the plaintiffs.

Randall Mullendore and others represents Sanford Brown and Career
Education Corporation.

The case is Madison case number 08-L-113.


SNAPNAMES.COM: Settles Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------
Domain Name Wire reports Snapnames has resolved two outstanding
lawsuits related to its bidding scandal.

First, the company has resolved its claims with former employee
Nelson Brady.  Mr. Brady was the sole employee who drove up bids
on SnapNames.  The settlement will not be made public, but
SnapNames parent company Oversee.net said the "financial penalty
is appropriate considering the seriousness of the improper
activity."

Second, the company reached a preliminary settlement in Resmer vs.
SnapNames.com.  This was originally a U.S. District Court case.
Facing problems proving the size of the claims, Stewart Resmer
later moved the case.

Both Mr. Resmer and the class action lawyers will receive
compensation paid by SnapNames.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Leonelli" Suit Over AirTran Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. defends a purported class action lawsuit in
connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings
Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest.

On Sept. 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated
stockholders of AirTran in the First Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada for Carson City against AirTran, Robert L.
Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Arne G. Haak, AirTran's Senior Vice President of Finance,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran
board of directors, Southwest and Merger Sub.

The Leonelli complaint generally alleges that the consideration to
be received by AirTran's stockholders in the Merger is unfair and
inadequate and that the AirTran officers and directors named as
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement through an unfair and flawed process and by approving
certain deal protection mechanisms contained in the Merger
Agreement.  The Leonelli complaint further alleges that AirTran,
Southwest and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran
defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTran's
stockholders.

The Leonelli complaint seeks injunctive relief:

    (i) enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger
        unless AirTran adopts and implements a procedure or
        process to obtain the highest possible price for
        AirTran's stockholders and discloses all material
        information to AirTran's stockholders,

   (ii) directing the individual AirTran defendants to exercise
        their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
        in the best interests of AirTran's stockholders,

  (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
        Merger Agreement, including the deal protection devices
        that may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran,

   (iv) awarding plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the
        action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
        fees, and

    (v) granting such other and further equitable relief as the
        court may deem just and proper.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537
active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states
throughout the United States.  The company provides point-to-point
service.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop
city pairs.  Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew
non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's
average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an
average duration of approximately 1.8 hours.  The company's point-
to-point route structure includes service to and from many
secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston
Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International,
Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft.
Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Frohman" Suit in Carson City
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. defends a suit filed by Frank Frohman in
connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings
Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest.

On Sept. 28, 2010, Mr. Frohman filed a purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit in the First Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City against AirTran,
Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each
member of the AirTran board of directors, Southwest and Merger
Sub.

The allegations in the Frohman lawsuit, as well as the relief
requested, are generally the same as those in the suit filed by
Frederick Leonelli.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537
active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states
throughout the United States.  The company provides point-to-point
service.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop
city pairs.  Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew
non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's
average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an
average duration of approximately 1.8 hours.  The company's point-
to-point route structure includes service to and from many
secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston
Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International,
Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft.
Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Church" Suit in Clark County
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. defends a suit filed by Douglas Church in
connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings
Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest.

On Oct. 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed a purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of
directors, Southwest and Merger Sub.

The allegations set forth in the Church lawsuit, as well as the
relief requested, are generally the same as those in the suit
filed by Frederick Leonelli with one addition.  The Church
complaint additionally alleges, as part of its breach of fiduciary
duty claim, that the individual AirTran defendants received
greater benefits under the Merger Agreement than other AirTran
shareholders.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537
active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states
throughout the United States.  The company provides point-to-point
service.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop
city pairs.  Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew
non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's
average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an
average duration of approximately 1.8 hours.  The company's point-
to-point route structure includes service to and from many
secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston
Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International,
Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft.
Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motions to Consolidate Four Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to consolidate four suits against Southwest Airlines Co.
in Florida are pending, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings
Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest.

Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and
for Orange County, Florida.

Harry Hoffner filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and similarly situated AirTran stockholders on
Sept. 30, 2010 against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of
directors, and Southwest.

This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on
Oct. 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on Oct. 12, 2010, and Robert
Loretitsch on Oct. 15, 2010 against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro,
AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran
board of directors, Southwest and Merger Sub.

The allegations in the Florida actions, as well as the relief
requested, are also generally the same as those in the suit filed
by Frederick Leonelli.

The Florida actions is in their preliminary stages.

On Oct. 12, 2010, Mr. Rosenberger filed a motion to transfer and
consolidate the Hoffner, Debardelan, and Rosenberger actions and
appoint Mr. Rosenberger as lead plaintiff and his attorneys as
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  A counter motion to transfer and
consolidate and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel was filed by Messrs.  Hoffner and Debardelan
on Oct. 19, 2010.   Those motions are currently pending.

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537
active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states
throughout the United States.  The company provides point-to-point
service.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop
city pairs.  Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew
non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's
average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an
average duration of approximately 1.8 hours.  The company's point-
to-point route structure includes service to and from many
secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston
Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International,
Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft.
Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports.


STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm Monday disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Strayer
Education, Inc. during the period between November 1, 2007 and
August 13, 2010, inclusive.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn
toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at
kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had engaged
in improper and deceptive recruiting and financial aid lending
practices and, due to the government's scrutiny into the for-
profit education sector, the Company would be unable to continue
these practices in the future; (ii) the Company failed to maintain
proper internal controls; (iii) many of the Company's programs
were in jeopardy of losing their eligibility for federal financial
aid; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and expected
earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis
when made.

On August 13, 2010, after the market closed, the U.S. Department
of Education released data on federal student-loan repayment rates
at the nation's colleges and universities.  The data showed that
repayment rates were 54% at public colleges and 56% at private
non-profit institutions, compared to just 36% at for-profit
colleges.  Specifically, the data showed that the repayment rates
at Strayer were just 25%.  On this news, the price of Strayer
stock dropped 18.37%, or $36.75 per share, from a closing price of
$200.01 per share on August 13, 2010 to a closing price of $163.26
per share on August 16, 2010, the following trading day, on a 482%
increase in trading volume.

If you purchased Strayer common stock during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class no later than December 14, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Although your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important
decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class
members.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative actions.

SOURCE:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          Telephone: 866-974-8626
          E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

               - or -

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          Telephone: 866-974-8626
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Seeks Ruling on Atrazine Discovery Order
-------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., a company facing class action
lawsuits over its popular weed killer atrazine, is asking a
Madison County judge to send constitutional questions to the
appellate court.

Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder heard arguments over certifying
questions related to an order she signed in September that governs
what discovery the plaintiffs may take from non-party trade groups
such as the Heartland Institute.

Heartland and other trade groups are fighting discovery requests
issued by attorney Stephen Tillery for his client Holiday Shores
Sanitary District in one of a series of proposed class actions
filed against the makers and distributors of atrazine.

Attorneys for the trade groups asked for clarification of the
order at the hearing Monday.

Judge Crowder had ruled against Heartland, the Illinois Farm
Bureau and others on many of their objections to the discovery
requests, requiring the groups to comply with what she told
attorneys were discovery requests related only to Syngenta.

The trade groups are still working out their questions about which
of those requests they must honor.

In the order entered Sept. 22, Judge Crowder wrote that she was
attempting to balance the third parties' First Amendment concerns
with what state law allows the plaintiffs to discover.

Holiday Shores and several other Illinois cities propose to lead a
class of water providers against Syngenta and other companies,
contending that atrazine contaminates their drinking water
supplies.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that
atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion,
the plaintiffs claim that even smaller amounts cause health
problems.

The plaintiffs have not specified to date at what concentrations
the alleged problems occur.

The defendants deny the claims.

Syngenta has tried unsuccessfully to dismiss or stay the Madison
County suit pending the outcome of a nearly identical class action
suit filed in the U.S. Southern District of Illinois earlier this
year.  That suit, alleging nearly identical claims, encompasses a
class of water providers in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other
states.

Syngenta attorney Kurtis Reeg told Judge Crowder that both sides
of the aisle had different readings of her Sept. 22 order,
particularly on what protections the defendant and non-parties had
under the First Amendment's freedom of association protection.

"The issue is not whether the court was right or wrong in what it
did," Mr. Reeg said. "We're asking you to certify the legality and
constitutionality of these kinds of discovery evidence."

Mr. Reeg mentioned specifically donations and lobbying
communications in his argument.

Syngenta's motion asking Judge Crowder to certify the appeal
includes 10 questions.

Mr. Reeg told Judge Crowder that once the appellate court resolves
the constitutional issues, the six year-old litigation would
proceed faster to its end.

Mr. Tillery dismissed Mr. Reeg's arguments about the appeal
speeding the end of the suit and argued that the entire notion of
appealing Crowder's discovery order was out of place.

"I would like someone to stand up and say how determination of
this issue is going to materially advance the termination of this
litigation," Mr. Tillery said.

Mr. Tillery argued the defendant had not produced a required
privilege log and that without it, the appellate court would not
be able to make a ruling anyway.

Therefore, Mr. Tillery said, Syngenta was entitled to take a trip
to Mount Vernon.

"They've just ignored presenting law," he said.  "They've waived
it."

Mr. Reeg countered that a privilege log was not necessary, with
Crowder interrupting to agree.

"Frighteningly, Mr. Mr. Reeg, we interpreted that the same way,"
Crowder said.

After the beginning of the arguments on the motions to clarify the
September order, Judge Crowder told attorneys she thought she had
been clear as to what the order covered.

"This court never had any intention of requiring these groups to
disclose any information about anybody but Syngenta," Judge
Crowder said.  "I find it puzzling that you guys are telling me
you don't understand that order. I very much took serious
consideration of the First Amendment issues but this is a lawsuit
and Syngenta is involved.  Anything that deals with Syngenta that
you guys have is discoverable."

Attorney Edward Dwyer, representing two chemical trade groups
subpoenaed by Mr. Tillery, answered by reading what he said were
contradictory parts of her order.

Mr. Dwyer went to ask for specifics related to his clients, at
which point Crowder addressed all of the non-party attorneys
present.

"If you gave it to Syngenta, then Mr. Tillery gets to see," the
judge said.

Christopher Byron, representing the Illinois Farm Bureau, also
questioned Crowder about the order and how it specifically related
to his client's communications about atrazine that did not
necessarily relate to Syngenta.

Mr. Tillery told Judge Crowder they were one in the same.

"Where is it that they have a First Amendment right to atrazine,"
Mr. Tillery said.  "If it relates to atrazine it's relevant."

Judge Crowder reiterated what she said she believed her order
covered.

She suggested that Byron meet with Mr. Tillery to discuss how the
Farm Bureau could comply and if needed, the two could set another
hearing date.

Judge Crowder took the appeals questions under advisement and gave
all the parties present two days to file supplement materials.

Mr. Tillery, whose team represents the plaintiffs in all of the
Madison County atrazine suits, represents those plaintiffs as
well.

The Madison County Syngenta case has progressed farther than the
other five cases because the company is the primary maker of
atrazine.

The 2004 atrazine suits had been stalled until last year when
discovery began proceeding.

Judge Crowder has refereed a number of discovery disputes in the
Syngenta case to date although the case should have joined the
other five atrazine cases on Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's docket.

Stack took over Judge Crowder's docket when she took over his
asbestos cases in August.

Stack presides over all of the other pending atrazine cases
currently.

Mr. Dwyer and Jennifer Martin of Hodge Dwyer & Driver of
Springfield represent both the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical
Association and Chemical Council of Illinois.

Ray Bell represents the Heartland Institute.

The case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine case numbers are 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Sued Over Mandatory Tip Distribution Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wynn Las Vegas forces its
service workers to share tips with management, in violation of a
collective bargaining agreement, a class action claims in Federal
Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Carter, et al. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-01868 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/WynnLasVegas.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathy A. McCarthy, Esq.
          Robert C. Carlson, Esq.
          Megan K. Dorsey, Esq.
          KOELLER, NEBEKER, CARLSON & HALUCK, LLP
          300 South Fourth Street, Suite 500
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 853-5500

               - and -

          Jon Mower, Esq.
          MOWER, CARREON & DESAI, LLP
          8001 Irvine Center Drive, #1450
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 474-3004


UNITED AIRLINES: Suit Complains About Automated Ticket Kiosks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that United Airlines automated
ticket kiosks are not accessible to the blind in California
airports, the National Federation of the Blind claims in a federal
class action.

A copy of the Complaint in National Federation of the Blind, et,
al. v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04816 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/UnitedAirlines.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence W. Paradis, Esq.
          Kevin Knestrick, Esq.
          Karla Gilbride, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, Third Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644

               - and -

          Daniel F. Goldstein, Esq.
          Gregory P. Care, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
          120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030


ZYNGA GAME: Faces Third Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
Valerie Gudac, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-04793 (N.D. Calif. October 22, 2010), accuses the San
Francisco, Calif.-based social game developer of transmitting
Plaintiffs' and other class members' personally-identifiable
information -- specifically, their personal Facebook IDs -- to
third party advertisers and web tracking companies, in violation
of Zynga's own private policy, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and various state
and federal laws.  Ms. Gudac says Zynga harvests personally-
identifiable information through the application programs it
enables Facebook members to play while on Facebook's site.

Ms. Gudac relates that he information that Zynga "surreptitiously
takes and forwards from Plaintiffs and other Class members can
readily, yet illegally, be linked and shared with data brokers and
advertisers to create comprehensive personal profiles."  Ms. Gudac
adds that these profiles are made without consumers' knowledge and
consent and "go far beyond Zynga's privacy disclosures and
assurances."

Ms. Gudac is a resident of Fort Myers, Florida.  During the
relevant time period, she used one or more of Zynga's Facebook
applications.

The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and are represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B. Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Email: gregorek@whafh.com
                 manifold@whafh.com
                 rickert@whafh.com
                 moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: levitt@whafh.com
                  aronowitz@whafh.com

               - and -

          William J. Doyle II, Esq.
          John A. Lowther, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 573-1700
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  john@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues.,
October 26, 2010; and coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the
Class Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010.


ZYNGA GAME: Faces Fourth Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard L. Schreiber, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-04794 (N.D. Calif. October 22, 2010), accuses Zynga, one of
the world's biggest providers for social networking Web sites
including Facebook, of sharing its users' personally-identifiable
information, including sensitive information as users' real names
with Zynga's advertising partners, in violation of Zynga's own
privacy policy, its agreement with Facebook, Inc., its promises to
users, accepted industry standards, and state and federal law.
Mr. Schreiber says Zynga shared its users' personally-identifiable
information without its users' knowledge or consent.

Mr. Schreiber, a resident of Long Beach, New York, is a registered
user of Zynga's services.  During the relevant time period, Mr.
Schreiber used an application owned and operated by Zynga on the
social networking site, Facebook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          10960 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 477-2244
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          One William Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK, LLP
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Freed, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000
          E-mail: eric@freedweiss.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          45 West Court Street
          Doylestown, PA 18901
          Telephone: (215) 230-8043
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues.,
October 26, 2010; coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010; and coverage of
Gudac v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04793 (N.D.
Calif.), appears in today's edition of the Class Action Reporter.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Ind. Records $563MM Settlement at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s current asbestos settlement was US$563
million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$534 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
Oct. 21, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos settlement amounted to US$545
million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$514 million as of
June 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated July 15,
2010.  (Class Action Reporter, July 23, 2010)

Net asbestos settlement was US$3 million during the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009.  Net asbestos settlement
was US$9 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$10 million during the three months ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc., makes coatings
and specialty products.  The Company serves customers in
industrial, transportation, consumer products, and construction
markets and aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $3.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related
costs of US$3.8 million during the three months ended Sept. 30,
2010, compared with US$22.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according
to a Company press release dated Oct. 21, 2010.

The Company recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs
of US$7.8 million during the three months ended June 30, 2010,
compared with US$23.4 million during the three months ended
June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

The Company recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs
of US$24.1 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$94.5 million during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was
US$500 million as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies were
US$1.7 billion as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.658B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. recorded net asbestos-related
reserves of US$2.658 billion during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
on Oct. 21, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
net asbestos-related reserves of US$2.593 billion.

Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides
property casualty insurance for auto, home and business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $1.34BB Liabilities at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$1.343 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press
release dated Oct. 22, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.543
billion as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30,
2010)

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$830 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$854 million as of June 30, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Unit Still Party to Coverage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp., is still involved in asbestos-related insurance
lawsuits that are pending in various courts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.

In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving
substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims
against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment of up to US$90
million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies.

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

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

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

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

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

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding
that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and
Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against
TPC.  On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the
Clarifying Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their
appeal of the order approving the settlement, and that request was
granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.

On Aug. 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
March 22, 2010 opinion, and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
seeking an order from the Supreme Court requiring the Second
Circuit to comply with the Supreme Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in
TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the
Petitions.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on Sept. 2, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010, respectively, arguing
that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been met and
seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.

On Sept. 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  A hearing on the Motions to
Compel was scheduled for Oct. 21, 2010.

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

Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides
property casualty insurance for auto, home and business.


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

The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any manufactured products.  The Company has
been successful in having a substantial number of these claims
dismissed without payment.

The remaining resolved claims have settled for amounts that are
not material individually or in the aggregate.  A substantial
majority of the asbestos-related claims have been covered by
insurance or other forms of indemnity.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin Corporation is a
global security company that is engaged in the research, design,
development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of advanced
technology systems and products.  The Company provides management,
engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and information
services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc, Units Still Party to Claims in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain current and former subsidiaries continue to
be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi courts.

During 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other
third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in Mississippi.  The lawsuits sought an unspecified
amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging
personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

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

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

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company.  While several cases
have been selected for trial during 2010 and 2011, none of the
cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are
included within those selected cases.

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

Headquartered in London, Ensco plc is an offshore drilling
contractor.  The Company owns a fleet of 45 offshore rigs,
including 40 jack-ups, one barge rig, and four ultra-deepwater
semisubmersible (capable of drilling in up to 8,500 feet of
water).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries still face
various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of
exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its facilities,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 21, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $48MM Litigation Costs at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, amounted to US$48 million during the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$36 million
during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company recorded asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, of US$49 million during the three months ended June 30,
2010, compared with US$37 million during the three months ended
June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, amounted to US$135 million during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$111 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

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

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

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $724MM Sept. 30 NARCO Receivable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements
reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future North American Refractories
Company-related asbestos claims of US$724 million as of Sept. 30,
2010, and US$831 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement
of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$816
million as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30,
2010)

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were
sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest.  Less
than 2% of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

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

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

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

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and
Honeywell.  In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of
the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeal is fully briefed, oral
argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter was submitted
for decision.

In connection with the settlement of an insurance coverage
litigation matter, the insurer appellants withdrew their appeal
regarding the NARCO Plan.  On Aug. 3, 2010 the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals entered an order formally dismissing the NARCO appeal.
The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however,
until the resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings of
NARCO affiliates.  The Third Circuit reheard this appeal en banc
on Oct. 13, 2010.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims of US$1.126 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010
and US$1.128 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims have been made.  About US$100 million of payments due under
these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO
trust.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Strikes Deal in Travelers Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., in July 2010, entered into a
settlement agreement resolving all asbestos coverage issues with
certain plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Travelers Casualty and
Insurance Company.

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

About US$200 million of unsettled coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
Sept. 30, 2010.

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

Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the
highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.

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

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 21,326 Unresolved Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction material business
had 21,326 unresolved asbestos-related claims during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2010 and 19,940 claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Bendix faced 21,359 unresolved asbestos claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30,
2010)

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, Bendix recorded 1,964
claims filed and 578 claims resolved and reactivated.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Bendix recorded 2,697 claims filed and
34,708 claims resolved and reactivated.

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

From 1981 through Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has resolved about
154,000 Bendix related asbestos claims.  The Company had 130
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in
adverse verdicts.  Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on
appeal, five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three
claims were settled and the remaining five have been or will be
appealed.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$589 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$566 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 million of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$146 at Sept. 30, 2010
and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2009 are reflected as receivables
in its consolidated balance sheet.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix, NARCO Liability at $1.69BB at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1.715 billion in total
asbestos-related liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.694
billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$1.706 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010, about US$589 million
related to the Company's Bendix friction material business and
US$1.126 billion related to the Company's former unit, North
American Refractories Company.

The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$870 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$1.003
billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$870 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, about US$146 million
related to Bendix and US$724 million related to NARCO.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Still Involved in AMSF's Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company continues to be involved in the Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Supporting Fund's litigation, which involves asbestos-
related matters.

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

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

The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al.
v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the
Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of lead
plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund v. Halliburton Company, et al.

The Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.
In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims
arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by
the Company, including that it failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

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

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

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

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007.  The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.  AMSF then filed a
motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting
permission to appeal the district court's order denying class
certification.

The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.  Both parties filed
briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December
2009.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
denying class certification.  On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ
of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In early October 2010, the Supreme Court neither granted nor
denied the Writ of Certiorari but referred it to the Solicitor
General for an opinion on whether the Court should accept the case
or not.

The Solicitor General will confer with interested agencies such as
the SEC, meet with the parties, and develop its recommendation,
which it will provide to the Court.  Then, the Court will decide
if it will hear the appeal.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to this matter.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company operates in two
segments: Drilling and Evaluation and Completion and Production.
Services include providing production optimization, drilling
evaluation, fluid services, and oilfield drilling software and
consulting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monadnock Waldorf Penalized for AHERA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monadnock Waldorf School, a private school in Keene, N.H., will
pay a cash penalty and make changes in its operations to settle
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claims that it violated
federal asbestos management laws, according to an EPA press
release dated Oct. 21, 2010.

According to EPA, officials from the Monadnock Waldorf School did
not develop appropriate asbestos management plans or properly
notify the school community about the condition of asbestos within
the two buildings they occupy, violating the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act, a part of the federal Toxic Substances
Control Act.

Monadnock operates its administration office and an elementary
school at one location in Keene, and has a nursery school and
kindergarten at another location.  EPA learned of the violations
during a May 2008 inspection that is part of an ongoing effort to
get schools in New England to come into compliance with asbestos
management regulations.

Specifically, EPA found that Monadnock failed to develop asbestos
management plans and failed to provide written notification to
parents, teachers, and employee organizations of the availability
of such plans on an annual basis.

Under the settlement, Monadnock's penalty, initially set at
US$12,573, was reduced by US$3,906 for work the school completed
after EPA's 2008 inspection to come into compliance with asbestos
regulations.  In addition, Monadnock will conduct more work,
estimated to cost US$7,200, to address compliance issues in the
future.

Monadnock has paid the remaining US$1,467 as a monetary penalty.
AHERA allows EPA to deduct the cost of compliance from the
penalty.

Although the Monadnock Waldorf School had performed asbestos
abatement work in the past, and may have believed that its school
buildings were asbestos free, historical data indicates that small
amounts of asbestos-containing building materials may still be
found at the school.

AHERA requires schools to properly manage any asbestos-containing
materials present in school buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Court Reverses Ruling in Robinson Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. says that, on Oct. 22, 2010, the Texas
Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision,
Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-
00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the
dismissal of an asbestos-related case against Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., a Company subsidiary.

The lower court decision was based on a change to Texas corporate
successor liability law enacted in June 2003 by the Texas
legislature, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2010.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was
unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to
asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the Texas
legislation was enacted in June of 2003.

The Company said it believes that the decision of the Texas
Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. manufactures
consumer packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans, and
related packaging.  Its portfolio includes aerosol cans and
various metal closures marketed under brands Liftoff, SuperEnd,
and Easylift, as well as specialty packaging, such as novelty
containers and industrial cans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Posts $15MM Claims Provision at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. recorded US$15 million as provision for
asbestos during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2010.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. manufactures
consumer packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans, and
related packaging.  Its portfolio includes aerosol cans and
various metal closures marketed under brands Liftoff, SuperEnd,
and Easylift, as well as specialty packaging, such as novelty
containers and industrial cans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $841MM for Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$841
million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$956 million as
of Sept. 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
Oct. 26, 2010.

Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$855
million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$828 million as of
June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$459
million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$510 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$463
million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$464 million as of
June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty
chemicals and technologies.  Its chemistry is used every day in
applications from automotive, food and beverages, personal care
products, pharmaceuticals, and paper and tissue to durable goods
and infrastructure, including building and construction, energy
and water treatment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 65,441 Open Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 65,441 asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 70,282 claims during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 65,352 pending asbestos-related claims during
the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 71,420 claims
during the three months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, July 30, 2010)

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
981 new claims, 337 settlements, 554 dismissals, and one MARDOC
claim.  During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company
recorded 696 new claims, 275 settlements, and 1,559 dismissals.

Of the 65,441 pending claims as of Sept. 30, 2010, about 23,300
claims were pending in New York, about 14,200 claims were pending
in Mississippi, about 10,000 claims were pending in Texas and
about 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in
which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims
that can proceed to trial on the merits.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Case Still Subject to Appeals in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says the Patrick O'Neil asbestos claim in Los Angeles is
currently subject to further appellate proceedings before the
Supreme Court of California.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.

One of these cases, the O'Neil case was reversed on appeal.
The Supreme Court accepted review of the matter by order dated
Dec. 23, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Baccus Case v. Crane Settled
---------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says the James Baccus asbestos case was concluded by
settlement in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of
the Company's appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is continuing to pursue an appeal in the Chief Brewer
asbestos claim, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Dennis Woodard Decision Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says the plaintiffs' appeal of a ruling in the Dennis
Woodard asbestos is still pending.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for 0.5% of plaintiffs' damages of
US$16.93 million.  However, based on California court rules on
allocation and damages, judgment was entered against the Company
for US$1.65 million, plus costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with
the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the
court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment
was entered in favor of the Company.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Mulls Appeal in Nelson, Bell Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. may pursue all available rights to appeal the verdicts
in the James Nelson and Larry Bell asbestos claims, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2010.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County state court jury found
the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million
verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a
US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

Both the Company and the plaintiffs have filed post-trial motions,
and judgment will be entered after those motions are resolved.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $75.7MM for Settlement, Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s gross asbestos-related settlement and defense costs
incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) were
US$75.7 million for the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$86.1 million for the nine-month period ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

The asbestos-related gross settlement and defense costs incurred
(before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company
totaled US52 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and
US$59.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class
Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the nine-month
periods ended Sept. 30, 2010 and 2009 totaled a US$43.7 million
net payment and a US$34.8 million net payment, (reflecting the
receipt of US$14.5 million in 2009 for full policy buyout from
Highlands Insurance Company), respectively.

Cumulatively through Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) about 67,000 claims, not including the
MARDOC claims.  The related settlement cost incurred by the
Company and its insurance carriers is about US$264 million, for an
average settlement cost per resolved claim of US$3,942.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $651.47MM Sept. 30 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$651,476,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$720,713,000, according
to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$672,848,000 as
of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

The Company's current asbestos-liability was US$100,300,000 as of
both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-insurance receivable was
US$187,420,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$213,004,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$16,167,000 during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$22,253,000 during the three months ended Sept.
30, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $166MM Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$166 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared
with US$205 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$13 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared
with US$12 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$168 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$208 million for the
six months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30,
2010).

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos.  Additionally, the Company has received claims for
asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has recognized
an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at Sept. 30, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Reserves $54MM at Sept. 30 for Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved US$54 million in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$49 million at Dec. 31,
2009.

Generation had reserved about US$53 million at June 30, 2010 in
total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.  (Class Action
Reporter, July 30, 2010)

As of Sept. 30, 2010, about US$17 million of this amount related
to 190 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$37 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050
based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on
an annual basis.

On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims to be received and
expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the
reserve is necessary.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, Generation increased
its reserve by about US$5 million, primarily due to an increase in
forecasted claims.  Updates to this reserve in 2009 did not result
in material adjustments.

Headquartered in Chicago, Exelon Corporation distributes
electricity to 5.4 million customers in northern Illinois
(including Chicago) and southeastern Pennsylvania (including
Philadelphia) through subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison and PECO
Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,400 Open Cases Ongoing Against Chicago Bridge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2010, faced
about 1,400 pending asbestos-related claims.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at
various locations.  The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 5,000
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 3,600 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

Through Sept. 30, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had accrued about US$2.8 million
for liability and related expenses.

The Company, at June 30, 2010, had accrued about US$2.5 million
for asbestos liability and related expenses.  (Class Action
Reporter, July 30, 2010)

Headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is an engineering and construction company that
designs and constructs energy infrastructure projects such as
liquefied natural gas storage, petrochemical and gas processing
plants, and heat transfer equipment.


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

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Quaker Chem. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received.  To date, the overwhelming majority of these
claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been
no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US$8.5 million (excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain
of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the
Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.
These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

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

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

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
were structured to be received over a four-year period with annual
installments of US$5 million, the final installment of which was
received in the first quarter of 2010.  The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation.

During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining
primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and
Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27% of defense
and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in
connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of
five years beginning July 1, 2007.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corp.'s normal
business operations pending against it and its subsidiaries.

No further asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities
provide electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.  The Company's domestic power plants
have a total generating capacity of more than 14,170 MW, most
generated by coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Badger Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been
named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products.

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and
markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control
technologies developed both internally and with other technology
companies.  Its products are used in applications, including
water, oil and chemicals.  The Company's product lines fall into
two categories: water applications and specialty applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 510 Lawsuits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2010, was a
defendant in about 510 active asbestos-related cases involving
about 3,070 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 470
active asbestos cases involving about 3,025 plaintiffs.  (Class
Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active
cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs.

During the period ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 170
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 200 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$6 million.

During the period ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 190 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$7 million.

About 2,600, or about 85%, of these claims are currently pending
in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based upon the Company's experience in such cases, it
believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against the Company will likely be a small fraction
of the total number of plaintiffs.

Most of the claims filed in 2007 through 2010 involve individual
or small groups of claimants.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation
produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and
tubular products, in North America and Central Europe.  Operations
in North America also include transportation services (railroad
and barge operations), real estate operations and engineering
consulting services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Faces 509 Exposure Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation faced 509 asbestos-related cases as of
Sept. 30, 2010 and 526 cases as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Between Dec. 31, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded two
case adjustments, 36 new cases filed, and 55 resolved cases.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company faced a total of 507 asbestos
cases.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number
of actual cases.  The Company has reserves for defense costs
related to claims arising from these matters.

Headquartered in Dallas, Celanese Corporation is a global
technology and specialty materials company.  The Company's
business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as
methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products,
including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic
polymers and other chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Sues Chevron in Texas Over Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edith Atkins, the widow of Jack Atkins, on Oct. 20, 2010, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against Chevron USA in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Throughout his career, Mr. Atkins was exposed to asbestos while
employed as a general laborer for Gulf Oil, now known as Chevron,
in Port Arthur, Tex.

The suit states, "As a result of such exposure, [Jack] Atkins
developed ... asbestosis and mesothelioma, for which he died a
painful and terrible death on Aug. 14.  Defendant knew for decades
that asbestos-containing products could cause . . . cancer and
still allowed employees to with and around asbestos."

Mrs. Atkins sues for exemplary damages.  Provost Umphrey attorney
Keith Hyde, Esq., represents Mrs. Atkins.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. D188-639.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holland-on-Sea Clerk's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Chelmsford heard that the death of Margaret Dyball,
a former clerk from Quilters Close, Holland-on-Sea, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Clacton Gazette
reports.

Mrs. Dyball had worked as a clerk for Upminster Garages Ltd where
she believed she was exposed to asbestos.  The inquest heard that
she was pursuing a legal claim for the disease.

In a statement she wrote for the legal claim before she died, Mrs.
Dyball said walking to and from her office across a "dirty and
dusty" workshop had exposed her to asbestos.

Mrs. Dyball was admitted to Colchester General Hospital on Aug.
27, 2010 with shortness of breath and a chronic cough.  An x-ray
showed fluid on the lungs and she died three days later at the age
of 66.  She had been previously admitted to the hospital, and
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009.

A post mortem examination concluded Mrs. Dyball died as a result
of mesothelioma and exposure to asbestos.  Coroner Caroline
Beasley-Murray said Mrs. Dyball had died as a result of industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gibson Family Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Gibson's widow, Jean Gibson, has appealed for Mr. Gibson's
coworkers to come forward to help the Gibson family's fight for
compensation, the Burton Mail reports.

Mr. Gibson died on Feb. 7, 2010 at the age of 78 after being
diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer in June 2009.

The family's solicitor fears that Mr. Gibson was exposed to
asbestos while working as a carpenter with Thomas Lowe & Sons
based in Burton, England, and later as a foreman at builders AE
Thompson & Sons Ltd, in Knowle.

At the time of Mr. Gibson's employment with both firms, asbestos
was routinely used in building work and he was often involved in
cutting and drilling into asbestos sheets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roscommon Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Dublin City Coroner's Court heard that the death of
William Carlos, of County Roscommon, Ireland, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, The Irish Times reports.

Mr. Carlos died at the age of 60 at St James' Hospital on Dec. 3,
2009.

Mr. Carlos' wife, Bernadette Carlos, told the inquest that Mr.
Carlos, who was a farmer for most of his life, had told her he was
exposed to asbestos while working in Britain.  He said on one
occasion that he was cutting tiles and it came down on top of him.

Mr. Carlos was admitted to the hospital for breathlessness in
April 2008.  He was subsequently diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma.  Mr. Carlos had surgery at Leicester University
Hospital in Britain in October 2008 and he also had chemotherapy
in Ireland.

By the summer of 2009, it was clear the tumor, which is
aggressive, had recurred.

Coroner Dr. Brian Farrell said he was satisfied Mr. Carlos died of
complications of malignant mesothelioma, including pneumonia,
which he developed as a result of exposure to asbestos during the
deceased's working life in Britain.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Brainerd, Jackson Gym Costs $350,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal at the Brainerd Building and the adjoining
Jackson Gym in Libertyville, Ill., could cost US$350,000, the
Daily Herald reports.

The demolition itself could cost an additional US$350,000,
Libertyville-Vernon Hills Area High School District 128 officials
said.

The estimates were made public on Oct. 25, 2010 during a brief
school board discussion about the Brainerd campus, which is on
Route 176 at Brainerd Avenue.

District officials insist they still support a volunteer group's
effort to convert the buildings into a community center.  Even so,
they want to have demolition estimates on hand if the group's
efforts fall short.

The Brainerd campus is owned by the school district but is being
rented by the group with the community-center plans.  Both
buildings have been shuttered for years because of safety
concerns.

The current Libertyville High is located just west of the site on
Route 176.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Summary Judgment Bid OK'd in Faddish Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
affirmed General Electric Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos lawsuit filed by Ruth Faddish on behalf of John Faddish.

The case is styled Ruth Faddish, Individually and as executrix of
the estate of John Faddish, deceased, Plaintiff v. General
Electric Co. et al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-70626 on Oct. 20, 2010.

This case is part of MDL-875, the consolidated asbestos products
liability multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

GE moved for summary judgment, asserting that Mrs. Faddish had
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether GE
products were the cause of Mr. Faddish's asbestos-related
injuries.

It was hereby ordered that GE's objections to the Magistrate
Judges' Report and Recommendation filed on June 16, 2010 were
overruled.

GE's motion for summary judgment filed on Jan. 29, 2010 was
granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Unit Facing 33 Filter Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, is a
defendant in 33 asbestos-related Filter Cases, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 27, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and the Company
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard
Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years
ago.

The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two
that also name Lorillard Tobacco.  Since Jan. 1, 2008, Lorillard
Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of
about US$20.4 million in settlements to finally resolve about 90
claims.

The related expense was recorded in selling, general and
administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income.
Since Jan. 1, 2008, verdicts have been returned in two Filter
Cases.

In September 2008, a jury in the District Court of Bexar County,
Tex., returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in Young v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company.  Plaintiffs in the Young case did not
pursue an appeal and that matter is concluded.

In January 2010, a jury in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in Cox v.
Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al.  Plaintiffs in the Cox case
voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their appeal to the
California Court of Appeals and the matter is concluded.

As of Oct. 20, 2010, nine Filter Cases were scheduled for trial.
Trial dates are subject to change.

As of July 22, 2010, 10 asbestos-related Filter Cases were
scheduled for trial.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

Headquartered in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc. is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products
are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True,
Maverick, Old Gold and Max with substantially all of its sales in
the United States of America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 17,000 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner, Inc. had about 17,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of Sept. 30, 2010 and 23,000 pending claims as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company faced about 18,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of both June 30, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

Of the 17,000 outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2010, about 9,000
were pending in just three jurisdictions, where significant tort
and judicial reform activities are underway.

In 2010, of about 6,400 claims resolved, about 168 (2.6%) resulted
in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.  In the full year of 2009, of about 5,300 claims
resolved, only 223 (4.2%) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement.  In June
2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the Company to
access the next available layer of insurance coverage.

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a funding
arrangement.  To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$144.3
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received US$29.7 million in cash from
insurers.

The net outstanding balance of US$114.6 million, which includes
the US$40.7 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which
about $42 million is expected to be recovered within one year.

Timing of the recovery is dependent on final resolution of a
declaratory judgment action.  At Dec. 31, 2009, insurers owed
US$58.6 million in association with these claims.

Headquartered in Auburn Mills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications.  Products are manufactured and sold worldwide to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e.,
passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over
vehicles, vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Pays $40.7MM for Claims in July 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner, Inc., in July 2010, paid a total asbestos-related
claim of US$40.7 million, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Oct. 27, 2010, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 5, 2010 the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate
Division affirmed a lower court judgment in an asbestos-related
action against the Company and others.  The Company filed its
Notice of Petition to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in late
April, seeking to appeal the decisions of the lower courts.

On July 8, 2010 the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the
Company's Notice of Petition appealing the decision of the lower
courts.  As a result of the Court's decision, the Company
increased its estimated liability for claims asserted, but not yet
paid by US$36.7 million to US$40.7 million and increased the
Company's related insurance receivable by US$36.7 million to
recognize the proceeds receivable from insurance carriers.

In addition to the US$114.6 million net outstanding balance
relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has
estimated a liability of US$45.7 million for claims asserted, but
not yet resolved and their related defense costs at Sept. 30,
2010.  The Company also has a related asset of US$45.7 million to
recognize the proceeds receivable from the insurance carriers.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the
Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions
received to date in a declaratory judgment action.  At Dec. 31,
2009, the comparable value of the insurance receivable and accrued
liability was US$49.9 million.

Headquartered in Auburn Mills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications.  Products are manufactured and sold worldwide to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e.,
passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over
vehicles, vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Casualty Case Ongoing v. BorgWarner
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner, Inc. and certain of its historical general liability
insurers continue to be party to a declaratory judgment action,
filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.,
by Continental Casualty Company and related companies.

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the
apportionment matter.  The interim order has the effect of making
insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata
to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the
insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage.
Appeals of the interim order were denied.

However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of
the action.  In addition to the primary insurance available for
asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial additional
layers of insurance available for potential future asbestos-
related product claims.

Headquartered in Auburn Mills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications.  Products are manufactured and sold worldwide to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e.,
passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over
vehicles, vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Flowserve Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a number of
pending lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the
past.

While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally
declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this
trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not
further increase.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were primarily encapsulated and used as components of process
equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of
this equipment.

The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the claims
are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies.

Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corporation is a
manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of comprehensive
flow control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.13BB for Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$1.13 billion at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.18 billion at Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct.
27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.14 billion at
June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

Net of reinsurance recoverables, the reserves were US$565 million
at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$600 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a
personal lines insurer.  The Company's Allstate Protection segment
sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance
products in Canada and the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Posts $3.7MM CAROs at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation says the estimated fair value of
asbestos-related conditional asset retirement obligation (CARO)
liabilities was US$3.7 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$3.5
million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company said the estimated fair value of conditional asset
retirement obligation liabilities was US$3.7 million at June 30,
2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

The Company has conditional asset retirement obligations (CARO) at
several of its fabricated products facilities.  The vast majority
of such CAROs consist of incremental costs that would be
associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of which
is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within walls,
floors, roofs, ceilings or piping) at certain of the older
facilities if such facilities were to undergo major renovation or
be demolished.

There are currently plans for such renovation or demolition at one
facility and management's current assessment is that certain
immaterial CAROs may be triggered during the next seven years.
For locations where there are no current plans for renovations or
demolitions, the most probable scenario is that such CAROs would
not be triggered for 20 or more years, if at all.

Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum
Corporation's primary line of business is the production of semi-
fabricated specialty aluminum products.  In addition, the Company
also owns a 49% interest in Anglesey, which operated an aluminum
smelter in Holyhead, Wales until September 2009.  The Company has
one reportable segment, Fabricated Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boylston Plant Manager Fined for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
H. Bradford White Jr., the general manager of the West Boylston
Municipal Light Plant in Boylston, Mass., was arraigned on
Oct. 27, 2010 on charges of violating the Clean Air Act in
connection with the removal of asbestos-containing materials from
the basement of the plant's main facility four years ago, the
Telegram & Gazette reports.

Mr. White pleaded not guilty in Worcester Superior Court to three
counts of violating air pollution orders while overseeing the 2006
demolition/renovation of an unused substation in the basement of
the plant at 4 Crescent St., West Boylston.

According to a "statement of the case" filed in court by Assistant
Attorney General Roberta Y. Horton, the work included the
demolition of asbestos-containing transit panels by several light
plant employees who were not trained in the handling of asbestos
nor provided with equipment designed for that purpose.

Mr. White, who had previously received asbestos training, oversaw
the project, but failed to warn the employees about the dangers of
the material they were handling and took no steps to ensure they
followed demolition procedures mandated by the state Department of
Environmental Protection, prosecutors allege.

Mr. White is also accused of failing to make sure the asbestos-
containing demolition debris was properly disposed of at an
approved waste site and failing to ensure the proper storage of
the material after it was tested and confirmed to contain asbestos
in March 2008.

The Department of Environmental Protection was notified of the
substation demolition/renovation in March 2009, visited the plant
and ordered additional testing of remaining material.  The testing
reconfirmed the presence of asbestos, and Mr. White was ordered to
comply with proper disposal procedures, according to the attorney
general's office.

A grand jury returned the indictments against Mr. White on
Sept. 20, 2010.  Judge James R. Lemire, who presided over this
morning's arraignment, released Mr. White on personal recognizance
and continued his case to Dec. 1, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Edison Summary Judgment OK'd in Lindemann
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
Ohio Edison's Jan. 15, 2010 motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Michael Lindemann.

The case is styled Michael Lindemann, Plaintiff v. Ohio Edison, et
al., Defendants.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No. 07-63080 on
Oct. 19, 2010.

Michael Lindemann, as executor of the estate of George W.
Lindemann, brought this action for asbestos exposure against
numerous defendants.  George Lindemann was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Feb. 7, 2005, and passed away on June 28, 2005.

Michael Lindemann asserted that Ohio Edison was liable as owner of
the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, located in Shippingport, Pa.,
where George Lindemann worked as a union laborer from 1974 to
1988.

George Lindemann was employed by Foster Wheeler as an independent
contractor at Bruce Mansfield.  Foster Wheeler had a contract with
the Plant for the maintenance of the "Unit One" boiler, and the
job consisted primarily of clean up, after repairs to the boiler
were conducted.

Michael Lindemann alleged that the in the clean-up process, George
Lindemann was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.  Michael
Lindemann brought a claim against Ohio Edison as the premises
owner of Bruce Mansfield.

Jason E. Luckasevic, Esq., Jason T. Shipp, Esq., Peter T.
Paladino, Jr., Esq., Diana N. Jacobs, Esq. of Goldberg Persky &
White in Pittsburgh, represented Mr. Lindemann.

Eric Falk, Esq., Julie L. Nord, Esq., of Davies, McFarland &
Carroll, P.C., Gregory L. Fitzpatrick, Esq., Margolis Edelstein,
Esq., Terry A. Schrock, Esq., Maron Pierce, Esq., Meghan Fawcett
Wise, Esq., Alexander P. Bicket, Esq., of Zimmer Kunz PLLC,
Jennifer E. Watson, Esq., of Wilbraham Lawler & Buba PC in
Pittsburgh represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Ford Motor's Bid in Anderson Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
Ford Motor Company's motion to compel production of settlement
documents in an asbestos case filed by Arva Anderson.

The case is styled Arva Anderson, individually and as personal
representative of the Estate of Joseph A. Anderson, Jr. v. Ford
Motor Company, et al.

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter entered judgment in
Civil Action No. 09-69122 on Oct. 20, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Yorker Fails to Conduct Proper Inspection
--------------------------------------------------------------
A man from New York pleaded guilty to charges he failed to conduct
the proper inspection of a building before the removal of asbestos
and falsifying a tax report, reports WIVB.com.

In 2008, Daniel Black, 56, of Bemus Point, NY, president of
Blackstone Business Enterprises, Incorporated, approved a cleaning
of a building in Jamestown, NY. Black hired four contractors to
work on the project which included the removal of steam pipes that
contained asbestos. The Department of Labor in the state of New
York, Asbestos Control Bureau and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration discovered the harmful fibers during an
inspection after the removal of the pipes.

Allegedly, Black did not conduct a thorough check for asbestos. He
has agreed that BBEI should pay a $205,000 penalty to OSHA and
$25,000 to NYS-DOL for the violations.

"Employees in the remediation and renovation business have the
expectation that their health and safety will be protected on the
job," said U.S. Attorney William Hochul, who added, "my office
will not hesitate to prosecute any who knowingly ignore the
country's laws in these respects."

Asbestos is a cancer-causing agent which often leads to the
development of mesothelioma, a rare and untreatable disease.
People who worry they may have contracted an asbestos-related
illness, such as mesothelioma, often try to seek compensation
through an asbestos law firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School District Has Grant to Remove Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Manchir, writing for TribLocal, reports that Valley View
School District has received a grant from the state to remove
asbestos flooring in three elementary schools.

A contract between the district and the Illinois Department of
Commerce and Economic Opportunity says the project will alleviate
"a threat to the health and safety of students enrolled" at  J.R.
Tibbott Elementary School in Bolingbrook and Irene King and R.C.
Hill Elementary Schools in Romeoville.

District spokesman Larry Randa said the current floors pose no
danger to students and the project is "just continued upgrades in
our schools."

The district is set to receive $140,000 to remove asbestos tile
and replace it with new flooring at those schools, according to
the contract.

When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed,
fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where
they can cause health problems, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Asbestos was once widely used in
a variety of building construction materials for insulation.

The Valley View school board was slated to take a vote on moving
the project forward at its 7:30 p.m. board meeting on October 25
at the district's administrative center, 755 Dalhart Ave. in
Romeoville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Kesteven Dist. Council Issues Safety Advice
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that North Kesteven District Council has issued
safety advice to its tenants over asbestos that may be present in
their homes.

The move comes after guidance from the Healthy and Safety
Executive.

A council spokesperson said most homes in private and public
ownership contained asbestos, especially those built in the 60s
and 70s.

But tenants were reassured the presence of asbestos itself was low
risk unless the material was damaged.

Conservative Councillor Stewart Ogden, executive member for
housing at NKDC, said: "The presence of asbestos in housing is
nothing unusual, in fact it is to be expected.

"By notifying tenants of the potential presence of asbestos in
their homes, we hope to reiterate the need to exercise caution and
contact the council in all cases where minor improvements could
disturb the material."

                             *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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  * * *