CAR_Public/101105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 5, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 219

                             Headlines

AMEDISYS INC: Defends Four Securities Violations Suit
AMEDISYS INC: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Louisiana
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Hospital Contracts
COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Class Suit Dismissal Pending
COMCAST CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Remains Pending

COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
COMMSCOPE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in N.C.
DEVRY INC: Accused in Illinois Suit of Defrauding Shareholders
FINANCE COMPANIES: May Face Class Action Over Telco Scams
FIRESIDE BANK: Watsonville Gets Donation From Class Settlement

GOOGLE INC: Settles Buzz Class Action for $8 Million
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Barrack Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action Suit
M/I HOMES: 90 Homes Have Defective Imported Drywall Installed
MGM RESORTS: Co-Lead Plaintiff in Shareholder Suits Selected
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Final Approval of DRAM Settlement Pending

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Defends DRAM-Related Suits in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Defends Three SRAM-Related Suits in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Defends Three Flash Products Suits in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated Suit for $42 Million
MONSANTO CO: Continues to Defend Suit Over Sale of Glyphosate

MONSANTO CO: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Missouri
MONTREAL: Ice-Clearing Class Action Ruling on Appeal
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeal on Class Certification Denial Pending
SCF STATE: Sued Over Bogus Debt Reduction Services

UNISOURCE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit vs. TEP
UNITED STATES: NACo Sued Over Deferred Compensation Plan
UNITIL CORP: Expects Court Ruling on Bellerman in 2011
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Breach of Warranty Lawsuits

WISCONSIN ENERGY: Faces Amended Complaint Over Pension Plan

* Dodd-Frank Act New Provisions May Spur Securities Class Suits
* Paul W. Mollica Joins Outten & Golden's Class Action Practice


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Made $36MM in Payments During Q3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls' Bankruptcy Plan Affirmed Oct. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Posts $341MM Net Costs at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 6,500 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RJR and B&W Still Involved in Parsons Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Dana Holding Drop to 30,000 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has $58MM Sept. 30 Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 88,200 Claims Pending v. Goodyear at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Has $6MM Expense for Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing Against CenterPoint Energy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 7,900 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Records $28MM Claims Provision at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Posts $735MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Involved in Aaron Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Party to 1,054 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases Pending Against Diamond Offshore in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Posts $428MM Retirement Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 28 Cases Ongoing Against Minerals Technologies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Still Cites $11MM Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 180 Cases in Md. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Still Involved in Aqua-Chem's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 220 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Involved in Occupational Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. 145 Firms Filed Oct. 18 in Kanawha

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richard Claim v. 14 Firms Filed Oct. 8 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Fugitive Captured in Dominican Republic
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WM Dillard Fined $10,844 for Cleanup Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unite to Challenge Court Ruling on Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Esso's Workers Removed From Marlin-A Platform

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Cites $6MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Posts $365MM A&E Net Loss at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Has $6.94MM Current Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Involved in Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Inc. Still Pursues Coverage Case in N.J.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Posts $1.067BB Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,939 Claims Ongoing v. ITT Corp. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Records $246MM for Discontinued Operations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Still Pursues Cannon Action in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Still Facing 22,500 Claims in 8 States
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSP-Minnesota Finalizing EnviroTech Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Holding Still Party to Exposure Claims


                             *********

AMEDISYS INC: Defends Four Securities Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., is defending four securities class action
complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana on behalf of all persons who purchased Amedisys
securities between Feb. 23, 2010 and May 13, 2010 against the
company and certain of its senior executives alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its senior
executives made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material facts, about our business, financial
condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to the
company's policies and practices regarding home therapy visits
under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the
related alleged impact on the company's business, financial
condition, operations and prospects.  The complaint seeks a
determination that the action may be maintained as a class action,
an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified
relief.

Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.  Those actions make
allegations similar those included in the June 7, 2010 complaint,
except that each purports to assert claims on behalf of a
different putative class of purchasers of Amedisys securities.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., is facing a suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 27, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, certain of its senior executives and current
and certain former members of the company's 401(k) Plan
Administrative Committee.

The suit alleges violations of the ERISA since Jan. 1, 2006.  The
plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of herself and a class
of similarly situated participants in the company's 401(k) plan.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the 401(k)
plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the class
period when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent
retirement investment because of the company's alleged improper
business practices.  The complaint seeks a determination that the
action may be maintained as a class action, an award of
unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Hospital Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Greene, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has been sued for the second time in
two weeks for allegedly pressuring 22 of the state's 131 hospitals
to sign illegal "most favored nation" contracts that required them
to charge higher prices to competing health insurers.

In a private class action lawsuit filed Oct. 29 in federal court
in Detroit, Hillsdale-based The Shane Group Inc and Bradley
Veneberg of Munising contend Blue Cross' illegal contracts with
the hospitals led them to pay "artificially inflated prices for
health care services."

While Helen Stojic, Blue Cross' director of corporate affairs,
said the state's largest health insurer has not been served with
the lawsuit, Blue Cross believes it must negotiate deep hospital
discounts to keep premiums as low as possible.

"This action is a separate civil lawsuit piggy-backing on the
recent U.S. government civil lawsuit relating to hospital
discounts," Ms. Stojic said in a statement to Crain's Tuesday
morning.  "Piggy-back plaintiff lawsuits are not a surprise or
unusual in these circumstances."

Ms. Stojic, who said the lawsuit has no merit, said Blue Cross has
saved Michigan businesses and individuals $13 billion in 2009
"through the provider discounts we fairly negotiated."

The class action lawsuit by The Shane Group and Mr. Veneberg could
include all individuals and businesses that purchased health care
services by Blue Cross or its competitors that contracted with a
hospital that had a most favored nation clause as early as January
2007, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are asking for damages of three times the amount of
their loss and to stop Blue Cross from negotiating and enforcing
most-favored nation-type contracts.

Last month, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and the U.S.
Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Detroit.  It asks for the clauses to be removed.

In its investigation, the Justice Department and Mr. Cox's office
found that in 2007 Blue Cross threatened to cut payments by up to
16 percent to 45 small and rural hospitals if they did not agree
to the most favored nation contracts.

Blue Cross also allegedly required 22 larger hospitals to pay more
than 20 percent more than Blue Cross rates, including hospitals
operated by William Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and St. John
Providence Health System in Warren.

Blue Cross, which insures more than 4.1 million people in
Michigan, is estimated to have approximately a 60 percent market
share for all insurance products, including individual and group.

Ms. Stojic said Blue Cross provides a number of programs that
benefit the people of Michigan.  They include:

    * Providing $15 million to subsidize the state's MiChild
program for children of lower-income working families.

    * Supporting 47 nonprofit community clinics with $1 million in
grants to ensure access to preventive health care for the
uninsured and ease pressure on uncompensated care in Michigan
hospital emergency rooms.


COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Class Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a purported class
action against Comcast Corporation remains pending in the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
September 2007.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
United States who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of
video service provided by one of the defendants.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants who produce video programming have
entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video
programming via cable and satellite (including the company), which
preclude the distributor defendants from reselling channels to
customers on an "unbundled" basis in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief requiring
each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its
customers on an "unbundled" basis.  In October 2009, the Central
District of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation's appeal on the class certification ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
remains pending.

The company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the U.S. District Courts for
the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
the company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints.  In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Philadelphia Cluster and Chicago Cluster customers were
certified in May 2007 and October 2007, respectively.

In March 2009, as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals
decision clarifying the standards for class certification, the
order certifying the Philadelphia Cluster class was vacated
without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a new motion.

In January 2010, in its decision on the plaintiffs' new motion,
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class subject to
certain limitations.  In June 2010, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals granted the company's petition for an interlocutory appeal
from the class certification decision.

In March 2010, the company moved for summary judgment dismissing
all of the plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster; the
summary judgment motion is stayed pending the class certification
appeal.  The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters
are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster
claims.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit against Comcast Corporation
filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state
antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.

In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.

The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek
relief on behalf of a nationwide class of the company's premium
cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium
cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania
and Washington.

In January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.

In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses
in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico and West Virginia.  In the amended complaint, plaintiffs
dropped their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law
claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois, and Pennsylvania
subclasses.

                     West Virginia AG's Case

The West Virginia Attorney General filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the company
improperly "ties" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
premium cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust
Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment
and restitution.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for West
Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated
with the multi-district litigation.

There were oral arguments in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in December 2009 in connection with a motion by the Attorney
General to remand the case back to West Virginia state court.  In
March 2010, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to West Virginia
state court.

In June 2010, the Attorney General moved to sever and remand the
portion of his claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive
relief back to West Virginia state court.

The company filed a brief in opposition to the motion in July
2010.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMMSCOPE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
CommScope Inc. is defending a putative class action lawsuit
asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on May 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina against CommScope and
certain current and former officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In
particular, the lawsuit alleges that during the putative class
period, from April 29, 2008 to Oct. 30, 2008, the company made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its
financial condition, specifically by allegedly failing to disclose
weakness in its current and future sales prospects in the
company's cabinets and apparatus business.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all those who purchased
CommScope common stock during the putative class period, and
seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest.

CommScope, Inc. -- http://www.commscope.com/-- provides essential
infrastructure that makes communication possible.  The company
empowers people to connect and communicate seamlessly where, when
and how they choose.  The company's solutions and services for
wired and wireless networks enable high-bandwidth data, video, and
voice applications everywhere -- at home, at work, and on the go.
Through every wave of technology, CommScope helps the world
connect and evolve. Backed by numerous respected brands such as
Andrew(R), SYSTIMAX(R) and Uniprise(R), CommScope supports
customers in more than 100 countries around the world through its
focus on integrity, ethics, quality and technical innovation.


DEVRY INC: Accused in Illinois Suit of Defrauding Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that DeVry is the latest for-
profit chain college to be accused of lying about its business
operations and student loan practices to inflate its stock price,
in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Boca Raton Firefighters' and Police
Pension Fund v. DeVry Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-07031 (N.D.
Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/02/DeVry.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerWallace.com
                  eaw@wexlerWallace.com
                  kae@wexlerWallace.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          E-mail: dgeorge@rgrdlaw.com
                  pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  rrrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Sugarman, Esq.
          Pedro A. Herrera, Esq.
          SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND
          100 Miracle mile #300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305-529-2801
          E-mail: pherrera@sugarmansusskind.com
                  sugarman@sugarmansusskind.com


FINANCE COMPANIES: May Face Class Action Over Telco Scams
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Stafford, writing for SmartCompany, reports small
businesses caught up in telco scams are considering launching a
class action against the finance companies currently holding the
businesses to account for the thousands of dollars they are paying
for virtually useless equipment.

Greg Stevenson, head of the Telco Finance Scams Association, says
he is currently dealing with hundreds of business caught up in the
scams, many of which are paying thousands of dollars for equipment
that was promised to them for free.

"It's only the tip of the iceberg.  There are plenty of stories
out there, and every day I'm hearing new complaints.  There have
been businesses that have been closed down, and victims are
popping up all the time."

"I was told I was getting $4,000 of equipment for free.  But I'm
still paying for it, and in the end I've had financing worth about
$19,000."

The issue of telco scams has gained prominence after the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, Graeme
Samuel, told ABC last night that he is focusing on finance
companies including Macquarie involved in the telco scams.

Mr. Stevenson says he is currently dealing with hundreds of
companies being pressured by finance companies into fulfilling the
contracts they signed.  The companies were offered "free"
equipment including televisions and telephones, but were signed up
to long-term financing deals that force them to pay thousands of
dollars more than the equipment is worth.

"If we can get enough businesses together, we will launch a class
action against the finance companies.  But the problem is that
there are so many people for each different finance company.  Once
we get enough we can split them into groups and then focus on
that."

"We're just trying to get all these companies together.
(Opposition business spokesman) Bruce Billson is helping, trying
to get funding for test cases, but we're just having trouble with
a lot of the finance companies as well."

Andrew Perrin, who runs Line Marks Southeast Queensland, says he
was duped into signing a contract that offered him free equipment
for his business, but he has ended up paying far more than that
equipment is worth.

"We had a call one day from a salesman telling us he could get us
this phone deal for basically the same price, but they could also
fund some equipment like a computer, a switchboard and a few other
bits and pieces."

"But that telco fell over, and now we've ended up paying nearly
$34,000 over the past five years for equipment that is basically
worth zero.  I've seen companies falling over and it's really
hurting people."

Mr. Perrin is currently negotiating with Macquarie Bank, which
controls the financing behind his deal.  But he argues even
getting to that point was a chore, and Mr. Stevenson says this has
been the case in other negotiations as well.

"Macquarie has delayed a lot of the negotiations and these types
of hoops are causing trouble for a lot of the companies."

"I know of one company owner who had to sell his investment
property to take care of the court case, and another who has had
to spend thousands keeping his case afloat.  It's really
stretching these companies and many are going to fall over."

Mr. Samuel agrees on this point, and said Monday night he is
disappointed with the response from Macquarie regarding a
"reasonable" stance towards companies involved in these deals.

But he also says that businesses need to avoid getting into these
scams in the first place, saying that SMEs need to take
responsibility for their own actions.

Five ways to identify a telco scam:

Read contracts

Mr. Samuel says he has heard plenty of businesses say these deals
are "too good to be true".

"If it sounds too good to be true, then it usually is.  Don't be
suckered into these types of deals, and read the contracts you've
been given."

Talk to lawyers

"After you've read your contracts, you may even want to go over
them with a legal representative, just to make sure that what
you're getting isn't totally wrong," Mr. Samuel warns businesses.

Don't trust anyone

Mr. Samuel warns that a lot of these businesses are being told to
ignore finance deals written into contracts.

"Don't believe that.  You can't take people at their word.  Common
sense dictates you need to check these contracts out for
yourself."

Check your cash

Mr. Samuel warns that businesses caught up in these programs are
completely strapped for cash.  "These businesses are paying a lot
of money.  Look at that figure and determine if it's something
that is going to hurt you.

Look at the longer term outlook

These contracts last for years.  Mr. Samuel says businesses need
to consider that if they sign onto an equipment deal they could be
stuck with payments for years.  "You really need to have a longer-
term outlook on these things and see how it's going to affect your
business over that time."


FIRESIDE BANK: Watsonville Gets Donation From Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jondi Gumz, writing for Santa Cruz Sentinel, reports two class
action lawsuits filed by consumers challenging a Pleasanton lender
have resulted in a $150,000 donation to the Watsonville Law Center
to support its consumer advocacy.

The money came from a settlement with Fireside Bank stemming from
an 8-year-old case affecting more than 17,500 borrowers.

According to law center director Dori Rose Inda, the story began
in 2002 when Sandra Gonzalez of San Jose sought help from Santa
Clara Law School's Katharine and George Alexander Community Law
Center.

Fireside Bank of Pleasanton had repossessed her car and said she
could get it back only by paying thousands more than she owed.

Ms. Gonzalez filed a class action suit against the bank,
contending its action violated state law.  She rejected a
settlement that would have more than returned her investment in
the car and left others with nothing.  After a judge agreed
Gonzalez could represent a class, the bank appealed to the
California Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

Ms. Gonzalez was represented by Andy Ogilvie and Carol Brewer at
Anderson, Ogilvie and Brewer, which specializes in reposession,
and the Alexander Law Center,

Ben Lomond resident Patricia Lind received a similar notice from
the same bank and filed a class action lawsuit in 2007.  She was
represented by Balam Letona of Santa Cruz and Brewer and Ogilivie.

"Her car was sold at auction," Mr. Letona said.  "She was an
honest person in need of help."

She had gone to the bank with the amount of the money in the bank
notice but the notice did not explain there would be other fees.
A June 2007 appellate court ruling mandated that creditors
planning to sell a vehicle after repossession must provide all the
information a borrower needs to get the car back, including
amounts due to third parties, addresses of those parties, late
fees and other payments due.

"It has improved the way banks give notice," Mr. Letona said.  "It
made them easier to understand."

Lawyers for the two borrowers joined forces in 2008, and the bank
finally agreed to make restitution.

The donation comes from monies left over after funds were
distributed to borrowers.  Those receiving notices in 2000 and
2001 were refunded 100 percent of the payments made after their
vehicle was repossessed.  Those who got notices between 2003 and
2007 got 90 percent.  Some checks became stale after going
uncashed for more than three months.

Sheryl Ainsworth, who chairs the Watsonville Law Center board of
directors, thanked the law firms, saying they "made a powerful
impact on behalf of consumers."

For information call 722-2845 or visit
http://www.watsonvillelawcenter.org/


GOOGLE INC: Settles Buzz Class Action for $8 Million
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports Google Inc. said Tuesday it will
allocate about $8.5 million to Internet privacy and policy
organizations as part of a class action settlement involving its
Buzz social hub.

The lawsuit had been filed by users of Google's free e-mail
service, Gmail.  In February, Google added a new social hub called
Buzz, which let Gmail users track their frequently e-mailed
contacts' status updates and other information shared online.  But
frequent e-mails don't necessarily mean people are actually
"friends."  The class action suit said Google violated privacy
rights by automatically adding Buzz to Gmail without making it
clear what information would be shared and with whom.

The settlement acknowledges that Google has made many changes to
Buzz to ease privacy concerns.  Google is creating an $8.5 million
fund, mainly to go to Internet privacy and policy organizations.
The company said it will also make additional efforts to teach
users about privacy on Buzz.

A federal judge has given the settlement preliminary approval.
The U.S. district court in San Jose, Calif., will consider final
approval of the proposed settlement on Jan. 31, 2011.

Google shares closed up 60 cents at $615.60.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Barrack Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack Rodos & Bacine Tuesday disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont, Blank v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters et
al., Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-267, on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. (Nasdaq:
GMCR) during the period from July 28, 2010 through September 28,
2010.

The complaint charges Green Mountain and its senior executives
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Green
Mountain is a leader in the specialty coffee and coffee maker
businesses.  It sells over 200 whole bean and ground coffee
selections, cocoa and teas in the United States and abroad.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements based on
improper accounting methods used for the company's financial
statements.  After the close of trading on September 28, 2010,
defendants filed a Form 8-K that revealed, for the first time,
that Green Mountain was the subject of an SEC investigation into
its revenue recognition practices.  In the SEC filing, the
defendants disclosed that the company had been notified by the SEC
of this investigation on September 20, 2010 and that the company
believed the focus of the inquiry concerns certain revenue
recognition practices and its relationship with one of its
vendors.  On this news, the price of Green Mountain's common stock
dropped from a closing price of $37.01 on September 28, 2010, to
close at $31.06 on September 29, 2010, a decline of 16%, on heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of Green Mountain during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Barrack Rodos & Bacine, which has
significant experience in prosecuting class actions on behalf of
investors in cases involving financial and corporate fraud.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 29, 2010.  To discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and for additional information
about your interest in this class action, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, at the following
toll-free number: 877-386-3304, or via e-mail to Jeffrey Gittleman
at jgittleman@barrack.com

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Barrack Rodos & Bacine.


M/I HOMES: 90 Homes Have Defective Imported Drywall Installed
-------------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes Inc., in its Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that it has identified roughly 90 homes
that have been confirmed as having defective imported drywall
installed by its subcontractors.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
company's homes filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the United
States or alternatively in Florida, against the company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties.

The plaintiff alleges that the company built his home with
defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of the
defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging metals.
The plaintiff alleges physical and economic damages and seeks
legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's
fees.

The company filed a responsive pleading on or about April 30,
2009.

This case has been consolidated with other similar actions not
involving the company and transferred to the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

In connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and five other homeowners are named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against a certain identified manufacturer of drywall and others
(including the company) and one other homeowner is named as a
plaintiff in another omnibus class action complaint filed in March
2010 against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and
others (including the company) -- collectively, the "MDL Omnibus
Actions".

As they relate to the company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.

During the third quarter of 2010, the company entered into
agreements with three of those homeowners named as plaintiffs
pursuant to which the company agreed to make repairs to their
homes consistent with repairs made to the homes of other
homeowners.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the company has identified approximately 90
homes that have been confirmed as having defective imported
drywall installed by its subcontractors.  All of these homes are
located in Florida.

The company accrued $12.8 million for the repair of these homes,
of which $2.3 million remains at Sept. 30, 2010, which is included
in Other liabilities on the company's Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.  During the third quarter of 2010,
the company received a $2.4 million settlement for claims
attributed to the defective drywall.  The company has made demand
for additional reimbursement from manufacturers, suppliers,
insurers and others for costs the Company has incurred and may
incur in the future in connection with the defective drywall;
however, no additional recovery has been reflected in the
company's financial statements.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/
-- builds single-family homes.  The company's homes are marketed
and sold under the trade names M/I Homes and Showcase Homes.  The
company has homebuilding operations in Columbus and Cincinnati,
Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa and Orlando,
Florida; Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina; and the Virginia
and Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.


MGM RESORTS: Co-Lead Plaintiff in Shareholder Suits Selected
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for the Las Vegas Sun, reports that more than
a year after Las Vegas-based casino resort operator MGM Resorts
International was hit with six shareholder class-action and
"derivative" lawsuits over a decline in its stock price, some of
the cases have advanced with selection of lead plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas last week selected
as co-lead plaintiff in shareholders' and debt holders' class
action cases a group of pension funds that claim to have lost $4.6
million when the stock of MGM Resorts -- then known as MGM Mirage
-- sunk between August 2007 and March 2009.

The stock -- which has since rebounded -- fell through March 2009
as the company faced a liquidity crisis because of recessionary
pressures as well as the need to finance the completion of the
$8.5 billion CityCenter resort complex on the Las Vegas Strip.

The equity investor selected as lead plaintiff is Public Pension
Funds, a consortium including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, the Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement and the
Luzerne County (Pa.) Retirement System.

Selection of the lead plaintiff is significant in the case as that
plaintiff's law firms will execute the litigation against MGM
Resorts and stands to collect legal fees if there's a judgment or
settlement.

Attorneys for the plaintiff funds said they have the financial
ability to represent all investor plaintiffs in the combined class
action cases and have had success in the past pursuing securities
lawsuits.

The Arkansas Teacher system manages more than $10 billion in
assets, the Philadelphia system more than $3 billion and the
Luzerne County system more than $150 million.  The Arkansas and
Philadelphia systems have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors in previous securities actions, their
attorneys said.

Selected as co-lead plaintiff, representing bond investors, was
Netherlands-based pension fund manager Stichting Pensioenfonds
Metaal en Techniek (PMT), which claims to have lost $2 million.

Citing an Enron Corp. securities fraud case, Judge Navarro noted
that there was no requirement that an investor in MGM Resorts
bonds -- as opposed to stock -- be appointed as a lead plaintiff.

But Judge Navarro wrote she "also recognizes the benefit that
could be provided by having a co-lead plaintiff that bought debt
securities and is therefore positioned to vigorously advocate on
behalf of similarly-situated debt purchasers."

Representing the Public Pension Funds are law firms experienced in
securities and business class-actions: Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP
in Daingerfield, Texas; Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check LLP
in San Francisco; and Coulter P.C. in Reno.

Representing bondholders will be Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP in San Diego and the Goodman Law Group in Las Vegas.

The selection of the Public Pension Funds group as the lead stock
plaintiff was a setback for the DeKalb County (Ga.) Pension Fund
and its attorneys with the Atlanta law firm Chitwood Harley Harnes
LLP, who said that fund suffered the largest individual loss of
$1.5 million and suggested that the Public Pension Funds
consortium was put together solely for litigation purposes.

"The Pension Fund Group submitted a joint declaration that is
inadequate because it fails to explain how this three-member
group, each with varying percentages of the claimed losses of the
group, will function as lead plaintiffs, especially in the event
of a disagreement over litigation strategy.  Likewise, the Pension
Fund Group has failed to establish that it is not a lawyer-driven
group formed solely to aggregate losses in an effort to obtain
lead plaintiff appointment," the Chitwood Harley Harnes attorneys
agued in court papers.

But Judge Navarro found one of the DeKalb arguments is based on
unsettled law.

She noted the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- which includes
Nevada -- "has not yet addressed whether a group of institutional
investors, banded together in an attempt to become lead plaintiff,
needs to affirmatively demonstrate that their group is
sufficiently cohesive to make timely, prudent decisions."

Six lawsuits were filed by MGM Resorts securities holders
beginning on Aug. 19, 2009.

Two have been combined in federal court in Las Vegas as the class-
action with lead plaintiffs Public Pension Funds and PMT.  Two
more suits are pending in federal court as "derivative" suits in
which the plaintiffs seek to force MGM Resorts to sue its own
officers and directors for the benefit of all shareholders.  The
fifth and sixth suits, also derivative cases, have been combined
in Clark County District Court, where they are pending.

MGM Resorts last year responded to the suits with this statement:
"The company believes that the allegations set forth in the
complaint(s) are without merit.  The company will vigorously
defend against these claims but there can be no assurance that the
outcome of the proceedings will not have a material adverse effect
on the company."

Since then, the company has reiterated in Securities and Exchange
Commission filings it intends to vigorously contest the suits.

The suits generally charge violations of securities laws and
breaches of fiduciary duties because of allegedly overly-
optimistic statements executives made about the company's revenue
and earnings outlook and that CityCenter was progressing smoothly
-- statements that allegedly inflated the company's stock price
even as company insiders sold close to $90 million of their own
stock.

"When the truth about MGM's deteriorating financial situation
became apparent, the stock price plummeted and caused large
monetary losses to investors who had purchased the securities
based on MGM's allegedly false representations," Judge Navarro
wrote in a ruling last week, summing up the allegations.

"Throughout the 'class action period' (August 2007 through March
2009), MGM touted its construction of the massive CityCenter
complex as a historic achievement and the creation of an iconic
landmark that would transform the face of the Las Vegas Strip.
Despite ballooning construction costs, MGM issued positive
statements about the progress of CityCenter, assuring investors
that the project was on schedule and would open in late 2009.
Along with MGM's positive statements about the progress of
CityCenter, the defendants boasted of MGM's superior balance sheet
and relative ease in securing billions of dollars in financing
prior to and during the credit crisis in the fall of 2008.  Both
assertions were false," attorneys for the Public Pension Funds
charged in their suit.

CityCenter did begin opening in December 2009, minus the Harmon
Hotel, where work was halted because of construction defects.
It's unclear when, or if, it will open.

In response to the problems disclosed in early 2009, MGM's stock
dropped from more than $15 in early January 2009 to close at $1.89
on March 5, 2009, the class action attorneys complained.

After a series of debt and equity issuances, refinances and asset
sales, MGM Resorts is now considered by analysts to be on better
financial ground and its stock is trading at about $11.

Separately, MGM Resorts has selected as outside counsel in the
cases Los Angeles attorney George M. Garvey of the law firm
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP; as well as longtime Las Vegas business
attorney Todd Bice of the firm Pisanelli Bice PLLC.

Mr. Garvey has extensive experience in securities and business
law, for instance representing the owner of the Forum Shops at
Caesars in litigation over the buyout of its limited partner and
representing Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in class actions over buyouts
of Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and other companies.

With the court system taking 14 months just to name the lead
plaintiffs in the class-action cases, MGM Resorts has not yet
filed its legal responses to the lawsuits and it appears they
could continue on for months or years unless there's a settlement.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Final Approval of DRAM Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., continues to await final approval of a
settlement agreement resolving suits over its dynamic random
access memories products, according to the company's Oct. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2010.

A number of purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been
filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers.

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at
least June 30, 2002.  The complaints allege price fixing in
violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust
and unfair competition laws and seek treble monetary damages,
restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees.

In addition, at least 64 cases have been filed in various state
courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect
purchasers of DRAM.  In July 2006, the Attorneys General for
approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman
Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection
and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as
well as injunctive and other relief.  On Oct. 3, 2008, the
California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California
Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California
government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of
the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the company agreed to pay a total of approximately
$67 million in three equal installments over a two-year period.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider
of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Defends DRAM-Related Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., continues to defend purported class
action cases filed in Canada over its dynamic random access
memories products, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2010.

Three purported class action cases have been filed against the
company in these Canadian courts:

     -- Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of
        Quebec;

     -- Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and

     -- Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry,
        British Columbia.

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United States.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the
British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008,
respectively.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of each of those
decisions.  On Nov. 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
reversed the denial of class certification and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  The appeal of the Quebec case is still
pending.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Defends Three SRAM-Related Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., continues to defend three purported class
action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of "Static Random Access
Memory" or "SRAM" products in Canada.

The lawsuits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.
These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased SRAM products directly or
indirectly from various SRAM suppliers.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Defends Three Flash Products Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., continues to defend three purported class
action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of Flash products in Canada.

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.
These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly and
indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated Suit for $42 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., has agreed to settle a consolidated
amended class action complaint for $42 million, according to the
company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2010.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Four substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in
the same Court.  The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the company's stock during the period
Feb. 24, 2001 to Feb. 13, 2003.  The five lawsuits have been
consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct or the
company's operations and financial results.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's stock
during the period from Feb. 24, 2001 to Sept. 18, 2002.

On Aug. 24, 2010, the company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action cases.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlement, the company and its insurers agreed to pay $42 million
with its contribution to the settlement comprising approximately
$6 million.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MONSANTO CO: Continues to Defend Suit Over Sale of Glyphosate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company continues to defend a suit in connection with the
sale of glyphosate to farmers.

Two purported class action suits were filed against the company on
Sept. 26, 2006, supposedly on behalf of all farmers who purchased
the company's Roundup brand herbicides in the United States for
commercial agricultural purposes since Sept. 26, 2002.

Plaintiffs essentially allege that the company has monopolized the
market for glyphosate for commercial agricultural purposes.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

In late February 2007, three additional suits were filed, alleging
similar claims.  All of these suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

On July 18, 2007, the court ruled that any such suit had to be
filed in federal or state court in Missouri; the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the two original cases.

On Aug. 8, 2007, plaintiffs in the remaining three cases
voluntarily dismissed their complaints, which have not been
re-filed.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the same set of counsel filed a parallel action
in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, on behalf of a retailer of
glyphosate named Texas Grain.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a
national class of all entities that purchased glyphosate directly
from the company since August 2003.  The magistrate judge issued
his recommendation to the District Court on Aug. 7, 2009, denying
class certification.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a global
provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products
that improve farm productivity and food quality.


MONSANTO CO: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company continues to defend a suit styled Rochester
Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to
the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, a purported class action suit was filed against
the company and three of its past and present executive officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements between Jan. 7,
2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the company's earnings guidance
for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and the anticipated future performance of
its Roundup business.  The alleged class consists of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Monsanto common stock between
Jan. 7, 2009, and May 27, 2010.

Plaintiff claims that these statements artificially inflated the
price of the company's stock and that purchasers of the stock
during the relevant period were damaged when the stock price later
declined.  Plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs.

On Sept. 27, 2010, three members of the alleged class moved to be
appointed the lead plaintiff in the action.  Those motions have
not yet been ruled upon.

On Sept. 28, 2010, plaintiff Rochester Laborers Pension Fund
advised the Court that it does not intend to file a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, but is willing to serve as lead
plaintiff should the movants fail to satisfy the requirements for
doing so.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a global
provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products
that improve farm productivity and food quality.


MONTREAL: Ice-Clearing Class Action Ruling on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports an ice storm
turned Montreal's downtown streets into a skating rink in early
December, 2004.  But crews distributing salt or sand to keep the
roads and sidewalks safe were few and far between.

The city's notoriously militant workers' union had staged an
illegal walkout to protest a new dispatch system brought in by the
city.  The union, defying an essential services order, even mixed
up the keys to the salt trucks to ensure any effort to make the
streets safe were hobbled.

Grace Biondi, 53, who answers customer service calls for Royal
Bank of Canada, was on her way to a doctor's appointment at Royal
Victoria Hospital when she fell hard, smashing her face on the
ice.

"A passerby helped me out and brought me [to the emergency room] .
. .  I felt really knocked out," said Ms. Biondi, who suffered a
concussion.

The vivid bruises on her face eventually faded.  But she had
severe headaches for months afterward, forcing her to miss work.
So she sued.

Ms. Biondi became the lead plaintiff in a class action that
recently resulted in an extraordinary judgment in the Quebec
Superior Court.  In September, a judge ordered the union to pay
$2-million in punitive damages, and ordered both the city and the
union to compensate anyone who suffered a serious fall during the
week of the storm.  At least 70 people have joined the suit so
far.

The ruling is being appealed.  But the case disproves the old
adage that you can't fight city hall.  Some observers say the
ruling, if it stands, could be used in other class actions -- in
Quebec but possibly elsewhere in Canada -- as a precedent that
would make it easier for plaintiffs to prove damages in such
cases.

Ms. Biondi's lawyer, class-action veteran Bruce Johnston of the
Montreal firm Trudel & Johnston, said the idea for the suit came
to him after he, too, slipped during the storm: "It was completely
otherworldly.  It was like a skating rink everywhere, and people
falling left, right and centre."

He said the argument he used of presuming cause on a "collective
basis" could be used as a road map in other class actions.  It
also forms the basis of another long-standing case he has launched
against the tobacco companies.

"The only thing that's really surprising is that it hasn't been
done before," Mr. Johnston said.

Essentially, Madam Justice Danielle Grenier agreed that any one
who fell during the days of that ice storm and can prove damages
will be entitled to compensation -- with the cause of the damages
in the vast majority of cases automatically presumed to have been
the lack of salt or sand.  Each claim will still have to be
individually vetted by the court, Mr. Johnston said.

While the rules on presumption and causation are different under
Quebec's civil law than in the rest of the country's common-law
jurisdictions, he said the principle could be used anywhere.

That is what worries Donald Bisson, a lawyer with McCarthy
Tetrault LLP in Montreal who defends against class actions and has
faced off with Mr. Johnston in other cases.  (Mr. Bisson did not
work on the ice-clearing case.)

Mr. Bisson said the ruling has "huge implications" because it
automatically presumes that anyone who fell in downtown Montreal
during the week of the strike fell because of the lack of ice-
clearing, and does not allow for other factors.  For example,
those who fell might have been impaired, or wearing slippers.

"What's disastrous for the defense . . . is that this could be
transferred to other cases.  Just think about a drug case, a drug
that is supposedly not working or has side effects," Mr. Bisson
said, arguing that other factors, such as taking too high a
medication dose or not following the instructions, could be pushed
aside if the logic of the ice-clearing ruling were applied to such
cases.

Mr. Bisson believes that if it stands, the ruling's impact as a
precedent would mainly be limited to Quebec.  But he said it could
be used as a guide by class-action counsel representing plaintiffs
outside Quebec.

David Stolow, a class-action defense lawyer in Montreal with
Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg LLP, isn't persuaded that the
Quebec decision's presumption of causation will have a dramatic
impact, saying that similar notions have surfaced in other cases:
"I don't necessarily find that to be a shocking principle."

He said more interesting will be how the $2-million is
distributed, especially if relatively few claims are approved.

After the ruling came out, both the City of Montreal and the union
said they disagreed with its conclusions.  In an e-mail, city
spokesman Gonzalo Nunez said the city does not believe it should
have to cover the costs of the claims: "We believe that it is not
up to the citizens of Montreal to pay for the consequences of the
illegal pressure tactics that took place in 2004."

Ms. Biondi is disappointed, but not surprised, that the city and
the union chose to appeal the ruling.  She noted that others who
fell on the ice that week had an even tougher time than she did;
one woman has since had seven knee surgeries, and lost her job
after missing too much work.  And a pharmacist who fell had to
learn to write with the other hand, after needing three wrist
surgeries.

Other victims who missed work slipped into depressions,
Mr. Johnston said.  "Your life takes a turn for the worse when
something like this happens."


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corp. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On March 27, 2007, the Court consolidated two ERISA lawsuits that
had been separately filed on September 28, 2006, and January 3,
2007, into In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation.
The plaintiffs seek to have the lawsuits certified as class
actions.

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

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Order denying
class certification, remanded the issue to the District Court for
further consideration.

As required by the Ninth Circuit's Order, the case was also
reassigned to a different judge.

The plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification was
rejected on a procedural technicality, but they are expected to
re-file.  The trial is scheduled for March 8, 2011.

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


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeal on Class Certification Denial Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California denying class
certification in a putative class action commenced against the
Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B remains pending.

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

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

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

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

After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class.  The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the Plan and denied plaintiffs' motion.

The District Court also denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010 as
unnecessary given the Court's grant of summary judgment for the
Plan.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

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


SCF STATE: Sued Over Bogus Debt Reduction Services
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SCF State Capital Financial
and its operators, Richard Rister, Katherine Kay, and Jacqueline
Mejia, took people for hundreds of thousands of dollars in upfront
fees for bogus debt reduction services, a class action claims in
Broward County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fernandez v. SCF State Capital
Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-41012 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/02/DebtReduce.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          Shanna M. Wall, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & LEVY, LLC
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit vs. TEP
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a putative class action against Tucson Electric
Power Co. have filed notices of appeal on the dismissal of their
suit by the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
according to UniSource Energy Corp.'s Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy.

Tucson Electric is a defendant in a putative class action filed on
Feb. 11, 2009, by members of the Navajo Nation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the rights of ways
for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly
granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was
inadequate.

The plaintiffs are requesting, among other things, that the
transmission lines on these lands be removed.

In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds and in September 2009,
the plaintiffs filed responses.

In March 2010, the Court granted several of the defendants'
motions to dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the
case in April 2010.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) in May 2010, appealing the BIA's decision to grant
the rights of way that were the subject of the now-dismissed
complaint.

In June 2010, the BIA found that the Notice of Appeal failed to
meet the minimum filing requirements.

In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed new Notices of Appeal
concerning the same rights of way.

UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a
holding company that conducts its operations through its
subsidiaries.  UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium Energy
Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy Development
Company (UED).  The company conducts its business through three
segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric.  TEP is an electric
utility that provides electric service to the community of Tucson,
Arizona.  UES, through its two operating subsidiaries, UNS Gas,
Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), provides gas
and electric service to 30 communities in Northern and Southern
Arizona.  UED developed and owns the Black Mountain Generating
Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine in Northern
Arizona that, through a power sales agreement provides energy to
UNS Electric.


UNITED STATES: NACo Sued Over Deferred Compensation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that County
employees claim the National Association of Counties enrolled them
in a "high cost, high risk" deferred compensation plan through co-
defendant Nationwide Retirement Services, so NACo could collect an
undisclosed "multimillion dollar annual fee."  The federal class
action claims that NACo did not disclose that it took money from
Nationwide "for promoting and endorsing Nationwide's plan," until
Forbes magazine disclosed it.

The class includes employees of Orange County, Fla.  They call the
NACo/Nationwide program "a complex, high cost, high risk, tax
deferred variable annuity unsuitable for government retirement
savings plans," and say that NACo promoted it simply to fill its
own pockets.

NACo, based on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., provides
"essential services to the nation's 3,068 counties," according to
its website.  It claims to offer "legislative, research, technical
and public affairs assistance as well as enterprise services," and
is "a national advocate for counties."

The class claims that for 30 years, NACo partnered with
Nationwide, promoting its Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
in exchange for a "multi-million dollar annual fee," though NACo
is not even a registered investment adviser.

"More than 360,000 county employees from over 1,900 counties
currently participate in the plan, with accumulated assets of more
than $8 billion," according to the complaint.

The class claims that those "participants receive no additional
tax benefit from the variable annuity format," because the Section
457 plans are "already tax-advantaged."

The class adds that the plan is "subject to substantial insurance
charges and withdrawal penalties," which reduces the value of the
accounts and investment returns.

In addition, "the majority of the plan assets are steered into
proprietary investment options and unaffiliated mutual funds that
pay revenue sharing and other kickbacks to Nationwide," the class
claims.
It adds that the plan "exposes participants to significant single-
issuer credit risk, i.e. Nationwide's, for which they are not
adequately compensated."

NACo disclosed in 2009 that it had accepted a $7.4 million annual
fee from Nationwide in 2008, though NACo claims it conducted a
"due diligence process" before choosing the plan, according to the
complaint.

The class says the quality of the plan "suggests otherwise."  It
claims that "NACo intentionally gave plaintiffs and the class
members unsound advice in order to collect its annual fee from
Nationwide."

County employees do not benefit from the annual fee, and "no
competent investment adviser would ever advise a client to invest
money that was already in a tax-deferred account (like a Section
457 Plan), into a tax-deferred investment (like a variable
annuity), because there is no advantage to offset the disadvantage
of the tax-deferred investment's lower expected return," the class
claims.

The class adds that the "high fees associated with the plan enable
Nationwide to pay NACo the annual endorsement fee, which reduces
the net rate of return received by participants in the plan."

The named plaintiffs, Camille McCullough and Melanie Monroe -- a
retired firefighter and a lieutenant for the Orange County
Corrections Department -- say they participated in the Nationwide
plan until May 2009, when the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners moved all employee and officials' contributions to a
plan managed by the Vanguard Group.

In 2006, the sheriff of Orange County brought a class action
against Nationwide in Ohio federal court, claiming that the
company took kickbacks from mutual fund advisers based on a
percentage of assets invested through Nationwide.  That complaint
was dismissed in 2007.

The class demands damages and restitution for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting and ERISA violations.

A copy of the Complaint in McCullough, et al. v. National
Association of Counties, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01600 (M.D. Fla.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/02/NACO.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis B. Miner, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          E-mail: curt@colson.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com


UNITIL CORP: Expects Court Ruling on Bellerman in 2011
------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corp., in its Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, relates that it expects a decision on whether the matter
Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company is
appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of 2011.

A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
Jan. 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts.

On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester
Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008.

The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported
unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008
Storm.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and
denying it in part.

Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility
holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail
distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire
and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of natural gas in
Maine.  Unitil has three retail distribution utility subsidiaries:
Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern).  Unitil's retail
distribution utilities serve approximately 170,000 customers in
their franchise areas.  Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
(Granite State), an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline
company, was acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from
NiSource Inc. in December 2008.  Unitil also provides energy
brokering and advisory services to large commercial and industrial
customers throughout the northeastern United States through its
non-regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Usource, LLC.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation continues to remain a defendant in numerous
related antitrust lawsuits connection with the pricing of
compressors from 1996 to 2009.

Since the government investigations became public in February
2009, the company has been named as a defendant in numerous
related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking
damages in connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to
2009.  Several other compressor manufacturers who are the
subject of the government investigations have also been named as
defendants in the litigation.

United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf of purported
purchasers and containing class action allegations have been
combined in one proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/--
manufactures and markets major home appliances, with annual sales
of approximately $17 billion in 2009, 67,000 employees, and 67
manufacturing and technology research centers around the world.
The company markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air,
Amana, Brastemp, Consul, Bauknecht and other major brand names to
consumers in nearly every country around the world.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Breach of Warranty Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending a number of class
action suits in federal and state courts alleging breach of
warranty, fraud and violation of state consumer protection acts.

The company says that there are no allegations of any personal
injury or property damage but unspecified compensatory damages are
being sought.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/--
manufactures and markets major home appliances, with annual sales
of approximately $17 billion in 2009, 67,000 employees, and 67
manufacturing and technology research centers around the world.
The company markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air,
Amana, Brastemp, Consul, Bauknecht and other major brand names to
consumers in nearly every country around the world.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Faces Amended Complaint Over Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy Corporation faces an amended class action
complaint in connection with its Cash Balance Pension Plan,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On June 30, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against the Plan in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Counsel representing the plaintiff
is attempting to seek class certification for other similarly
situated plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that Plan participants who received a lump
sum distribution under the Plan prior to their normal retirement
age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 and are owed additional benefits, because the Plan failed to
apply the correct interest crediting rate to project the cash
balance account to their normal retirement age.

On Sept. 6, 2010, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint alleging additional claims under ERISA and adding
Wisconsin Energy as a defendant.  The plaintiff has not specified
the amount of relief he is seeking.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation -- http://www.wisconsinenergy.com/--
based in Milwaukee, is one of the nation's premier energy
companies, serving more than 1.1 million electric customers in
Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula and more than 1 million
natural gas customers in Wisconsin.  The company's primary
subsidiaries are Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Gas
LLC and W.E. Power, LLC.


* Dodd-Frank Act New Provisions May Spur Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Green, writing for RiskMetrics Group, reports securities
class actions may see a shot in the arm from a number of changes
brought about by the Dodd-Frank Act.  This is particularly true
regarding fraud exposed by whistleblowers.  According to Kramer
Levin Naflalis & Frankel LLP, Section 922(a) of the Act seeks to
entice whistleblowers to expose fraudulent behavior by providing
incentives and protections to individual whistleblowers who
provide "original information" voluntarily to the SEC.
Specifically, where whistleblower information leads to subsequent
enforcement action resulting in sanctions greater than $1,000,000,
whistleblowers are entitled to recover 10% to 30% of the monetary
sanctions.  Such awards will be funded by the SEC Investor
Protection Fund, which itself will be funded by the sanctions
collected by the SEC.  The SEC has reported that the Investor
Protection Fund is already fully funded at just under $452
million.

In addition to allowing whistleblowers who qualify potential
recovery from SEC sanctions, the Act creates for them a private
right of action against retaliation from employers.  The remedy
has a six year statute of limitations and the action can be
brought directly in federal court.  No longer will whistleblowers
be required to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor prior
to filing in federal court.  The remedies available are broad and
include reinstatement, double back-pay, with interest, and
compensation for litigation costs and attorneys fees.

The Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions reach far and wide with
additional provisions aimed specifically at the financial
industry.  Section 748 of the Act provides new whistleblower
protections involving products under the jurisdiction of the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission.  And, Section 1057
establishes a new private right of action and whistleblower
remedies to financial services industry employees for reporting
violations under the jurisdiction of the new Bureau of Consumber
Financial Protection.

In addition to the expanded incentives and protections for
whistleblowers, the Act also provides new provisions for executive
incentive-based compensation.  The Act requires that the SEC
prohibit securities exchanges from listing any company that does
not disclose incentive based compensation.  And, its "clawback"
provision under Section 954 requires that executive incentive-
based compensation based on false financial data be returned to
the company.  The Act's clawback provision covers all executive
officers and applies to all incentive-based compensation going
back three years from the date of a misstated financial filing.
This is in contrast to Sarbanes Oxley, which only allowed a one
year look-back and which only covered the issuer's current CEO and
CFO.

The Dodd-Frank Act's clawback provision could spawn a number of
derivative law suits to recover ill gotten executive bonuses
obtained in connection with fraudulent misstatements.  The Act's
whistleblower provisions could have the same effect for securities
class actions.  The bounty potential in some whistleblower cases
could be extremely high, especially for Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act claims where sanctions can be hundreds of millions of dollars.
In his analysis of the whistleblower provision Kevin LaCroix of
the D&O Diary blog notes that "[t]here is little doubt that the
bounty provisions are likely to encourage fraud reporting."
Naturally, if such a trend occurs it will almost certainly have
the effect of encouraging spin-off securities class action suits.

SEC Request for Comments: Private Right of Action Against Non-US
Issuers

As Securities Litigation Watch reported, the Dodd-Frank Act
codified the SEC and DOJ's power to enforce federal antifraud
securities legislation with respect to fraudulent conduct abroad.
Federal courts will have jurisdiction to hear such actions where
(1) "conduct within the United States . . . constitutes
significant steps in furtherance of the violation," or (2) conduct
occurring outside of the United States . . . has foreseeable
substantial effect within the United States.  However, the Act did
not go so far as to codify extraterritorial application of federal
securities fraud laws for private parties.  Yet, it does take some
steps in this direction.  Under Section 929Y, the SEC is charged
with soliciting public comment and conducting a study on whether
the federal antifraud laws should be extended to cover conduct
outside the U.S.  A report of the study with recommendations is to
be submitted to Congress within 18 months after the date of
enactment.  Pursuant to Section 929Y, the SEC is now requesting
comments on the "Extraterritorial Private Right of Action."  A
copy of the request for comments as well as details for how to
make a submission are available here.

By way of background, in Morrison v. NAB the Supreme Court
established the "transactional test," which turned on its head
decades of circuit court jurisprudence involving multi-national
securities class action litigation.  The Court chose to adopt a
black letter test that has since been applied by lower courts to
bar both f-squared and f-cubed securities fraud litigants from
suit.  In other words, the test has been applied to eliminate the
private right of action under federal securities fraud laws to
investors who traded their securities on a foreign stock exchange
(here for more information).  The implications for private
plaintiffs as well as the SEC seem far reaching.  But, the
ultimate outcome on this issue is far from certain.  Two high
profile transnational cases currently pending in U.S. lower courts
are the Vivendi and Porsche cases, both of which are likely to be
impacted by the Morrison transactional rule.

If the SEC's study on the extraterritorial private right of action
results in a recommendation to Congress to allow such actions, it
could open the door to an Exchange Act amendment that would in
effect overrule Morrison.  Morrison's transactional rule would
likely be replaced by a test similar to that currently available
to the SEC under the Dodd-Frank Act, which is very similar to the
conduct and effects test applied by many of the circuit courts
prior to Morrison.  However, given the looming November elections,
if Republicans gain a majority in the House of Representatives as
polls predict, Congressional approval of an Exchange Act
amendment overturning Morrison could be less likely.


* Paul W. Mollica Joins Outten & Golden's Class Action Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul W. Mollica has joined Outten & Golden LLP as Of Counsel,
bringing over 20 years of experience in civil rights, employment
discrimination, and ERISA, including nation-wide class action
litigation.

Mr. Mollica will work in Outten & Golden's new Chicago office,
which O&G plans to open in early 2011.  He joins the firm's class
action and impact litigation practice, which prosecutes cases
involving a wide range of employment issues, including economic
exploitation, gender- and race-based discrimination, wage and hour
violations, and other systemic workers' rights issues.

"Paul's incredible depth of knowledge and wealth of practical
employment-law experience will be invaluable to the firm's class
action work," said Adam T. Klein, partner and co-chair of the
Class Action Practice Group.

Before joining Outten & Golden, Mr. Mollica was a partner in the
firm of Meites Mulder, Mollica & Glink.  He and his firm
represented plaintiffs in class, collective and public interest
litigation covering all aspects of the federal civil rights laws
(including employment, constitutional and voting rights, housing
and public accommodations), as well as ERISA, securities, qui tam,
insurance law and other complex litigation.  Mr. Mollica has wide
appellate experience, including dozens of appeals in state and
federal courts, and many amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court
and U.S. Courts of Appeals.

He is a frequent author and lecturer in the area of employment
discrimination.  He served as executive editor on the recently-
published Fourth Edition of Lindemann and Grossman's Employment
Discrimination Law (2007), and was associate editor or reviewer on
the volume's 2000, 2002, 2008 and current supplements.  In 2008,
he was named an Advisor to the American Law Institute's Employment
Law Restatement and was admitted to the College of Labor and
Employment Lawyers.

In 2008, Mr. Mollica was honored by the Illinois Public Defenders
Association with their annual "Award of Excellence."  He is also a
two-term past president of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, a
public-interest bar association.  He has been a member of the
Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Board of
Governors since 2001, a member of its Executive Committee since
2009.

"Outten & Golden is a national powerhouse in the field of
representing the rights of employees.  It's going to be my honor
to be associated with it," Mr. Mollica said.

Mr. Mollica earned a B.A., from The College of the University of
Chicago and a J.D., with honors, from DePaul University College of
Law.  He is admitted to practice in Illinois and in various
federal district and appellate courts, including the United States
Supreme Court.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Made $36MM in Payments During Q3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. recorded asbestos-related cash payments
of US$36 million during the third quarter of 2010, down from
US$38 million during the third quarter of 2009, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2010.

The Company's asbestos-related cash payments during the second
quarter of 2010 were US$43 million, down from US$49 million during
the second quarter of 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30,
2010)

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first three quarters of
2010 were about 24% lower than the same period last year.

The current portion of asbestos-related liabilities was US$175
million as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.  Long-term
asbestos-related liabilities were US$196.5 million as of Sept. 30,
2010 and US$310.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes consumer-preferred, 100% recyclable
glass containers that enable superior taste, purity, visual appeal
and value benefits for its customers' products.  The Company
employs more than 24,000 people with 81 plants in 22 countries.
In 2009, net sales were US$7.1 billion.  The Company is
headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls' Bankruptcy Plan Affirmed Oct. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., on Oct. 28, 2010, announced that the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered an
order on Oct. 28, 2010 approving and confirming the amended
pre-negotiated Chapter 11 reorganization plan filed by its wholly
owned subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc., on July 12, 2010.

The reorganization plan is intended to permanently resolve
Leslie's asbestos liability through the creation of a trust under
Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, according to a Company
press release dated Oct. 28, 2010.

All current and future asbestos claims against Leslie would be
channeled to the trust for review and payment, thus providing both
Leslie and CIRCOR with permanent court protection from such
claims.

Leslie is currently awaiting review and approval of the 524(g)
trust aspects of the reorganization plan by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware.  Upon entry of such a District
Court order and absent a stay pending appeal, Leslie and the
Company would fund the trust once various closing conditions are
satisfied and the plan becomes effective.

Leslie's final emergence from bankruptcy and distributions from
the trust to claimants would not occur until any appeals from the
District Court's order are favorably resolved, although the
Company and Leslie believe that any such appeals would be without
merit.

The Company's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Bill
Higgins said, "Receiving bankruptcy court confirmation is a major
step toward Leslie's emergence from Chapter 11.  We commend
Leslie's dedicated team of employees for continuing to conduct
business as usual and maintaining the Company's strong
relationships with customers and suppliers during the bankruptcy
process.

"We are now focused on obtaining district court approval and the
plan becoming effective as soon as possible.  We look forward to
concluding this chapter in Leslie's history and enabling Leslie to
grow and contribute to CIRCOR's profitability and cash flow going
forward."

CIRCOR International, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Posts $341MM Net Costs at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's net asbestos-related costs amounted to US$341
million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared
with US$223 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009,
according to a Company press release dated Oct. 29, 2010.

The Company recorded US$12 million net asbestos-related costs
during the three months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

Net asbestos-related costs amounted to US$368 million during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$224 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$905 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$64 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.  The Company's long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$1.521 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010, and
US$867 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is an
engineering and manufacturing company operating in three vital
markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security,
and motion and flow control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various product liability lawsuits and claims -- including
asbestos-related actions -- arising in the normal course of
business are still pending against Mine Safety Appliances Company.

The Company is presently named as a defendant in about 1,900
lawsuits, primarily involving respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company.  Collectively,
these lawsuits represent a total of about 8,900 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in
part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Company
develops, manufactures and supplies products that protect people's
health and safety.  Its safety products integrate any combination
of electronics, mechanical systems, and advanced materials to
protect users against hazardous or life threatening situations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 6,500 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, has determined that it
is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 6,500 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Oct. 28, 2010, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company has determined that it was a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about
6,400 plaintiffs and claimants.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6,
2010)

The Company is one of a number of defendants in a substantial
number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by
persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of
exposure to dust containing asbestos fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits
or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company, as of
Sept. 30, 2010, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
381,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,700.  Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.

Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$30.8 million at
Sept. 30, 2010 (US$36.3 million at Dec. 31, 2009) and are included
in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes consumer-preferred, 100% recyclable
glass containers that enable superior taste, purity, visual appeal
and value benefits for its customers' products.  The Company
employs more than 24,000 people with 81 plants in 22 countries.
In 2009, net sales were US$7.1 billion.  The Company is
headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RJR and B&W Still Involved in Parsons Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Reynolds American Inc. (R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc.) are still
involved in an asbestos case styled Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, Reynolds American Inc. is a
holding company whose operating subsidiaries include the second
largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States, R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, and the second largest smokeless tobacco
products manufacturer in the United States, American Snuff
Company, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Dana Holding Drop to 30,000 at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 30,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at Sept. 30, 2010 versus 31,000
at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Oct. 28, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company had about 31,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 6, 2010)

In addition, about 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled
and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or
without payment.

The Company has accrued US$109 million for indemnity and defense
costs for settled, pending and future claims at Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
driveline products (axles and driveshafts), power technologies
(sealing and thermal management products) and genuine service
parts for light and heavy vehicle manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has $58MM Sept. 30 Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at Sept. 30, 2010, had recorded US$58
million as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for
the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability
claims, unchanged from the asset at Dec. 31, 2009.

During the first nine months of 2010, the Company recorded US$1
million of pre-tax expense (US$2 million during the first quarter,
offset by a US$1 million credit during the second quarter) to
correct amounts primarily associated with asbestos-related
insurance receivables at Dec. 31, 2009.

During the second quarter of 2009, the Company determined that its
post-reorganization claims activity warranted a reevaluation of
its estimated liability for asbestos claims.

This resulted in a reduction of the estimated liability and a
benefit of US$6 million, net of insurance recoverables, which was
recognized in selling, general and administrative expense.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
driveline products (axles and driveshafts), power technologies
(sealing and thermal management products) and genuine service
parts for light and heavy vehicle manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 88,200 Claims Pending v. Goodyear at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded 88,200 pending
asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2010 and 90,200 pending claims during the year ended Dec. 31,
2010.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
1,300 new claims filed and 3,300 claims settled or dismissed.
Payments during the period were US$22 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 1,600
new claims filed and 10,400 claims settled or dismissed.  Payments
during the period were US$20 million.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities.  Typically, these
lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state
and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 85,800 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement.  The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$366 million through Sept. 30, 2010 and US$349 million through
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$131
million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$136 million at Dec. 31, 2009.  At
Sept. 30, 2010, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by US$15 million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims
of US$67 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$69 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.  The Company expects that about 50% of asbestos
claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance
through the period covered by the estimated liability.

Of these amounts, US$10 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$11
million at Dec. 31, 2009 were included in Current Assets as part
of Accounts receivable.

The Company said it believes that, at Sept. 30, 2010, it had about
US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products
claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance
policies.  Some of these excess policies provide for payment of
defense costs in addition to indemnity limits.

A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$67 million insurance receivable recorded at
Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis, and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at
Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires.  The Company has 56 manufacturing facilities
in 22 countries, including the United States.  The Company
operates its business through four operating segments: North
American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire; Latin American
Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Has $6MM Expense for Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded US$6 million in the
third quarter of 2010 and US$3 million in the third quarter of
2009 of expense related to asbestos claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 28, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company recorded US$5 million of expense related to asbestos
claims in the second quarter of 2010 and 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

In addition, the Company recorded US$3 million of income in the
third quarter of 2010 related to probable insurance recoveries and
a US$1 million reduction of probable insurance recoveries in the
third quarter of 2009.

The Company recorded US$18 million of expense related to asbestos
claims in the first nine months of 2010 and US$16 million in the
first nine months of 2009.

In addition, the Company recorded US$4 million of income related
to probable insurance recoveries in both the first nine months of
2010 and 2009.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires.  The Company has 56 manufacturing facilities
in 22 countries, including the United States.  The Company
operates its business through four operating segments: North
American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire; Latin American
Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing Against CenterPoint Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., or its subsidiaries face lawsuits filed
by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Oct. 28, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by the Company's subsidiaries.  The Company anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as
NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas LP,
ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims
relating to the generating business has been assumed by NRG Texas
LP, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend such claims
to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the
Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense
from NRG Texas LP.

Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public
utility holding company.  The Company's operating subsidiaries own
and operate electric transmission and distribution facilities,
natural gas distribution facilities, interstate pipelines and
natural gas gathering, processing and treating facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 7,900 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 7,900 asbestos-related claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010 and 8,000 claims during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Oct. 28, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company faced 7,900 asbestos-related claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, July 30,
2010)

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
100 claims closed.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company recorded 200 claims closed and 100 claims opened.

The asbestos liability was US$44.5 million at Sept. 30, 2010,
and US$45 million at Dec. 31, 2009.  The insurance receivable
related to the liability as well as claims for past payments was
US$23.7 million at Sept. 30, 2010, and US$26.5 million at Dec. 31,
2009.

Headquartered in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a
global specialty chemicals and materials company and sell its
products to diverse major markets for aerospace composites,
structural adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings, chemical
intermediates, electronics, inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Records $28MM Claims Provision at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd recorded a US$28 million provision for asbestos claims as
of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$53 million as of Dec. 31,
2009.

The Company's Combustion Engineering Inc. subsidiary was a
co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos.  A smaller
number of claims were also brought against the Company's former
Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the
Company.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  The CE
plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization
became effective on April 21, 2006, and Aug. 31, 2006,
respectively.

Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created and
funded to settle future asbestos-related claims against CE and
Lummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channeling
injunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos-
related personal injury claims filed against the Company and its
affiliates and certain other entities that relate to the
operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PI
Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively.

Included in the asbestos provisions at Sept. 30, 2010, is a
payment of US$25 million to the CE Asbestos PI Trust, payable in
2011, if the Company attains an "Earnings before interest and
taxes" margin of 9.5% in 2010.

If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to have
defaulted on its asbestos payment obligations, the CE Asbestos PI
Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the CE
channeling injunction and the protections afforded by that
injunction to the Company and other entities of the Company, as
well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd engineers power and
automation technologies for utility, industrial, and commercial
customers.  Power products include transmission, distribution
components, and turnkey substation systems.  Automation
technologies monitor and control equipment and processes in
industrial plants and utilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Posts $735MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$735 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared
with US$734 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company
press release dated Oct. 28, 2010.

The Company recorded non-current asbestos-related liabilities
of US$724 million as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 6, 2010)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$250 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$330
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical portfolio of
specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics
businesses delivers a broad range of technology-based products and
solutions to customers in about 160 countries and in high growth
sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and
agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Involved in Aaron Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to be involved in the asbestos-
related lawsuit styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66
Company et al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones
County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of
their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name certain of TODCO's subsidiaries and certain
subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent, to whom TODCO may owe
indemnity, and other unaffiliated defendant companies, including
companies that allegedly manufactured drilling-related products
containing asbestos.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.  The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and
other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.  The
plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.

All of these cases were assigned to a special master who has
approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by plaintiffs so
that claims made would be properly served against specific
defendants.  About 700 questionnaires were returned and the
remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply,
have had their suits dismissed without prejudice.

Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by
TODCO and its former parent which could lead to claims against
either company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not state
in their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim
as identified in the questionnaire answers.

Defendants not identified in the amended complaints were dismissed
from the plaintiffs' litigation.  To date, three plaintiffs named
TODCO as a defendant in their amended complaints.

Headquartered in Houston, Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides
shallow-water drilling and marine services to the oil and natural
gas exploration and production industry globally through its
Domestic Offshore, International Offshore, Inland, Domestic
Liftboats, International Liftboats and Delta Towing segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Party to 1,054 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2010, was a party to about
1,054 pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of
about 8,169 claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Oct. 28, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company was a party to about 1,019
pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,071 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

The cases allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
726 claims filed, 333 claims dismissed, and 40 claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim was US$8,138 and total
defense costs were US$2,147,000.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded
586 claims filed, 254 claims dismissed, and 40 claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim was US$4,644 and total
defense costs were US$2,652,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company said it believes that many of
its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

Of the 8,169 claims pending at Sept. 30, 2010, about 53 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum).  About 42 of the 53 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), nine sought between
US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes
compensatory and punitive damages) and two sought over US$10
million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 44 of the 53
claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, seven sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million and two sought over
US$5 million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 42 of the 53
claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million, nine
sought between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and two sought
over US$5 million.  In addition, relatively few of the claims have
reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past
the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about
US$5.7 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos cases is
monetary in nature.  To date, about 50% of the Company's costs
related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been
covered by its primary insurance.

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

The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and
indemnity coverage available to the Company that might otherwise
be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of such expenses.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases Pending Against Diamond Offshore in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is one of several defendants in
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized
drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's case,
allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.

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

Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides
contract drilling services to the energy industry around the globe
and is a leader in offshore drilling with a fleet of 46 offshore
rigs currently consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and
one drillship.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Posts $428MM Retirement Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s non-current asset retirement
liability amounted to US$428 million as of Sept. 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 29, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These liabilities primarily relate to nuclear generation plant
decommissioning, land reclamation related to lignite mining,
removal of lignite/coal-fueled plant ash treatment facilities and
generation plant asbestos removal and disposal costs.

Headquartered in Dallas, Energy Future Holdings Corp. is a holding
company with operations consisting principally of its TCEH and
Oncor subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 28 Cases Ongoing Against Minerals Technologies
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Company currently has 28 pending asbestos cases, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 29, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.

To date, four asbestos cases have been dismissed.  Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date.  The
Company is unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed
in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do
not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Still Cites $11MM Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$11 million, which has been reflected as a liability in the
condensed consolidated financial statements as of Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
including related legal costs to range between US$7.8 million and
US$16.5 million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for
a period of 18 to 30 years from the end of the current fiscal
year.

Of the US$11 million, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of about US$500,000 over the next 12 months.

Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a
designer, manufacturer, and marketer of material handling
products, systems and services, which efficiently and safely move,
lift, position, or secure material.  Key products include hoists,
actuators, cranes, and lifting and rigging tools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 180 Cases in Md. at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc., says that, as of Sept. 30, 2010, there are
about 180 cases still pending against subsidiary Potomac Electric
Power Company in the State Courts of Maryland.

Of those cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000, and
were tendered to Mirant for defense and indemnification under the
terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement between Pepco and
Mirant under which Pepco sold its generation assets to Mirant in
2000.

In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and
Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."

Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases
on a theory of premises liability.  Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe
work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly
were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property.

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco
to their complaints.  While the pleadings are not entirely clear,
it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory
damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed.  As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, Pepco has had about 400 of these cases successfully
dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or
by the court.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about
US$360 million, the Company and Pepco believe the amounts claimed
by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings, Inc., is a
holding company that is engaged primarily in the distribution,
transmission and default supply of electricity and the delivery
and supply of natural gas.  Subsidiaries include Potomac Electric
Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Atlantic City
Electric Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Still Involved in Aqua-Chem's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company is still disputing former subsidiary Aqua-
Chem, Inc.'s (n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) claims over Aqua-Chem's
demands for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket asbestos
litigation-related expenses.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem.
A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers.
Several years after the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem
received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of
some of the gaskets.

In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it believed
it was obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with
its asbestos litigations.  Aqua-Chem demanded that the Company
reimburse it for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-
related expenses.

Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing
obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses
that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or
for which there is no insurance.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem.

In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16
defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem
and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers,
including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow
account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims
against Aqua-Chem.

On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.

The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for one-hundred percent of Aqua-
Chem's losses up to policy limits.  The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement.

Headquartered in Atlanta, The Coca-Cola Company owns and markets
nonalcoholic beverage brands and is a manufacturer, distributor
and marketer of concentrates and syrups used to produce non-
alcoholic beverages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 220 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 220 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation,
LLC was potentially liable and that had not been settled and
dismissed at Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Oct. 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company had recorded a US$57 million liability at Sept. 30,
2010, for previous, pending and future claims.

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20,
2003, to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50 percent of
specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related
expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing
arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future
asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportion
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or
Company locations.  The obligations under this agreement are not
subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject
to the right of either party to terminate); under the automatic
renewal provision, it has been extended until February 2011.

Headquartered in Bolingbrook, Ill., Midwest Generation, LLC sells
wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest.  The power
producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,470 MW from its
six coal-fired power plants in Illinois.  It also oversees the
operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which
have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Involved in Occupational Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive
motion) that are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.

Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Oct. 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Headquartered in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation's
Norfolk Southern Railway Company unit is engaged in the rail
transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and
finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and,
via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. 145 Firms Filed Oct. 18 in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos lawsuits against 145 defendant corporations were filed in
Kanawha County Court on Oct. 18, 2010 by Phyllis Bodo, Connie
Castner, Joyce Ann Neely, Ronald Owings and Rebecca Sue Owings,
James R. Enoch and Kenneth J. Enoch, and Edward G. Werkin and
Andrea J. Werkin, The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Bodo, executrix of the Estate of David Bodo; Mrs. Castner,
executrix of the Estate of Alfred B. Castner Jr.; Mrs. Neely,
executrix of the Estate of Glen R. Neely; the Owingses; the
Enochs, co-executors of the Estate of Kenneth E. Parker, deceased;
and the Werkins filed their cases against A.O. Smith Corporation;
Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Alliance Machine Company; and other
companies.

The plaintiffs claim the 145 defendants are responsible for their
various lung injuries, including asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung
cancer.  They seek jury trials to resolve all issues involved.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the plaintiffs.

Case Nos. 10-C-1845, 10-C-1846, 10-C-1847, 10-C-1848, 10-C-1849,
and 10-C-1850 are assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richard Claim v. 14 Firms Filed Oct. 8 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit on behalf of Richard G. Richard Sr. was filed
against 14 defendant corporations on Oct. 8, 2010 in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Richard worked for Gulf Oil in Port
Arthur from 1952 until the 1970s, where he claims he was exposed
to asbestos and asbestos containing products and materials.

The complaint says Mr. Richard developed an asbestos-related
disease and has experienced physical pain, suffering, mental
anguish, lost wages, disfigurement, physical impairment and
incurred medical bills.

Because of Mr. Richard's disease, Delores L. Richard says she lost
her husband's care, maintenance, services, support, advice,
counsel and consortium and suffered mental anguish.

The defendants are Chevron USA, Able Supply Co., AMF Inc., B&B
Engineering & Supply, Cleaver Brooks, Crown Cork & Seal, Foster
Wheeler Corp., Guard-Line Inc., Met Life, 3M, Riley Power, Triplex
Inc., Vogt Power International and Zurn Industries.

The Richards seek general, special, punitive and exemplary
damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other
relief the court deems just.

Tina H. Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont, Tex.,
will be representing the Richards.

Case No. B185-573 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Fugitive Captured in Dominican Republic
------------------------------------------------------------
Nineteen months after she fled her federal sentencing hearing,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fugitive Albania Deleon was
captured on Oct. 30, 2010, in the Dominican Republic, according to
an EPA press release dated Nov. 2, 2010.

Dominican law enforcement authorities, with the assistance of the
U.S. Marshals Service, arrested Ms. Deleon, who had disguised her
appearance and assumed a false identity, following a vehicle stop.
She was wanted by EPA for certifying individuals as having
asbestos removal training when they never took the required
course.

Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said, "Albania Deleon put
communities at risk by issuing fraudulent asbestos-removal
training certificates to hundreds of untrained workers.  This is
yet another example of great teamwork and dedication of the United
States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, U.S.
Marshals Service and our own special agents who protect the
American people from environmental crimes."

U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, "We are pleased that Albania
Deleon will at last face punishment for the crimes for which she
was convicted.  I wish to commend and thank the Dominican law
enforcement authorities and U.S. Marshals Service for their hard
work in pursuing her."

On Nov. 20, 2008, the 40-year-old Ms. Deleon was convicted in
federal court after nearly a three week trial on one count of
conspiracy to make false statements, to encourage illegal aliens
to reside in the United States and to hire illegal aliens; five
counts of making false statements within the jurisdiction of the
EPA; 16 counts of procuring false payroll tax returns; and five
counts of mail fraud.

From around 2001 to 2006, Ms. Deleon owned and operated
Environmental Compliance Training, a certified asbestos training
school located in Methuen, Mass.  ECT normally offered training
courses on a weekly basis at its offices; however, many of the
recipients of the certificates never took the required course.

Instead, with Ms. Deleon's knowledge and approval, ECT's employees
issued certificates of course completion to hundreds of
individuals who did not take the course.  These individuals filed
the certificates with the Massachusetts Division of Occupational
Safety to be authorized to work in the asbestos removal industry.
Many of the recipients were illegal aliens who wished to skip the
four-day course so that they would not forego pay.

ECT's training course records were subject to inspection and Ms.
Deleon sought to cover up ECT's practice of issuing certificates
to untrained applicants by having the applicants sign final
examination answer sheets that already had been completed and
graded, which she maintained in ECT's files.  Evidence at trial
proved that of the all the ECT training certificates issued, about
65 percent to 80 percent of the individuals had not taken the
necessary training.

Most of these individuals who were not certified were employed by
Methuen Staffing, Ms. Deleon's temporary employment agency that
specialized in asbestos demolition.  She sent the employees to job
sites throughout Massachusetts, including the Boston, Worcester
and New Bedford-Fall River areas, as well as to New Hampshire,
Maine, Connecticut and beyond.

Ms. Deleon paid most of the employees "under-the-table," and did
not withhold taxes.  She reported to the Internal Revenue Service
and her workers compensation insurance carriers only those
employees that actually had taxes withheld, which enabled her to
save more than US$1 million in tax and insurance payments.

Ms. Deleon fled Massachusetts two days before she was scheduled to
be sentenced on March 23, 2010.  When she failed to appear at the
sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued a
warrant for her arrest. She became the first woman named to EPA's
fugitive list.

The U.S. Marshals Service undertook a nationwide search for Ms.
Deleon, and once it determined that she had fled the country, the
U.S. State Department submitted, on behalf of the U.S. Attorney's
Office, a request to the Dominican government to arrest and
extradite her.

Agents with the Direccion Nacional de Control de Drogas (DNCD)
observed Ms. Deleon at a residence in Santa Domingo.  Agents
pulled over her vehicle after she left the residence.  Upon her
arrest, Ms. Deleon claimed she was Elba Henriquez Pena and was
carrying a false identity card with her picture and her name. Upon
further questioning, she admitted that she was Albania Deleon and
was wanted in the United States.

Ms. Deleon was transported to DNCD headquarters for booking and
processing and will be held pending an extradition hearing.

Ms. Deleon faces an extradition hearing in the Dominican Republic.
Upon her return to the United States, she will face up to five
years imprisonment on each count, except for the mail fraud
counts, which carry 20-year maximum sentences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WM Dillard Fined $10,844 for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a US$10,844
penalty to WM Dillard Wholesale Nursery Company, of Damascus,
Ore., for allowing an employee to conduct an unlicensed asbestos
abatement project in a structure on property on which the nursery
operates at 23055 SE Tillstrom Road in July 2010, according to an
Oregon DEQ press release dated Nov. 1, 2010.

An asbestos survey of the unoccupied structure that the Company
had received in early July 2010 confirmed that the building
contained 735 square feet of friable, or breakable, asbestos-
containing vinyl flooring.  The survey recommended that the
flooring be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor.

The nursery company obtained a bid from a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor which stated that notification of the work to
DEQ and fees were required before asbestos removal could occur.

Despite having background information from the survey and the bid,
WM Dillard Wholesale Nursery proceeded to allow employee Michael
W. Dillard to remove the asbestos, even though Dillard is not
licensed or certified by the state to perform such work.  While
removing the flooring, the employee reportedly shattered or
crumbled at least a portion of the flooring, likely releasing
asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.

In assessing the penalty, DEQ noted its concern that the Company
moved ahead with the unlicensed asbestos removal despite having
sufficient information indicating that a licensed contractor was
required to do the work.

WM Dillard Wholesale Nursery has until Nov. 15, 2010 to appeal the
penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unite to Challenge Court Ruling on Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unite the Union is to dispute a Court of Appeal ruling that could
affect victims of mesothelioma and their right to compensation,
News & Star reports.

In October 2010, the Court ruled that, in some cases, the
employer's liability insurance is triggered not by the exposure to
asbestos in the workplace but by the development of mesothelioma.

However, since symptoms of mesothelioma begin decades after
asbestos dust has been inhaled, the ruling means thousands of
British workers who develop the disease could be deprived of
compensation.

Unite believes this is unfair and now plans to challenge the
ruling in the Supreme Court.

Unite joint general secretary Tony Woodley said, "The way the
insurers refused to pay out in these cases is a kick in the guts
to every family that's watched a loved-one suffer a painful and
degrading death from mesothelioma.

"Insurers sold their policies knowing that employers and workers'
families would rely on them.  Now they're trying to weasel out of
paying based on fancy legal argument and policy small print.

"Unite will put its full weight behind this appeal.  We will
pursue it because we want to see justice done."

Ian McFall, head of asbestos policy at trade union law firm
Thompsons Solicitors, added, "Asbestos victims will welcome the
decision by Unite to pursue the appeal to the highest court in the
land and the union's principled stance in opposing the insurers'
latest legal challenge."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Esso's Workers Removed From Marlin-A Platform
--------------------------------------------------------------
Esso removed 32 workers from its Marlin-A oil and gas platform in
Bass Strait, which is between Tasmania and Victoria, Australia,
because of concerns over asbestos, ABC News reports.

The Company was monitoring air-conditioning systems and decided to
remove the workers.  An Esso spokesman says six workers have
remained on board the platform to maintain production.

The Australian Workers Union says asbestos was detected in the
vacuum system in the platform's living quarters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Cites $6MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded an asbestos litigation charge of
US$6 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the
same as for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009, according to a
Company press release dated Nov. 1, 2010.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
an asbestos litigation credit of US$41 million.  During the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded an asbestos
litigation charge of US$15 million.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC), which might
arise from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan).  On Dec.
21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan.

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

As a result of progress in the parties' continuing negotiations,
the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now represents
the most probable outcome of this matter and the probability that
the 2003 plan will become effective has diminished.  The proposed
settlement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the Company to
contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning
Europe, N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed series of cash
payments recorded at present value.

The Company will have the option to contribute shares rather than
cash, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not number of
shares.  The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC
asbestos claims that may be or have been raised against the
Company.  The Company has recorded an additional amount for such
claims in its estimated asbestos litigation liability.

In the first quarter of 2010, several of the parties in the
bankruptcy proceedings filed a modification of the Amended PCC
Plan with the Bankruptcy Court which reduced the amount of cash
expected to be contributed by Corning to the settlement.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company recorded a charge of
US$6 million (US$4 million after-tax) to adjust the asbestos
litigation liability for the change in value of the components of
the modified PCC Plan.

Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Incorporated makes
specialty glass and ceramics.  Products include glass substrates
for LCD televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic
substrates and filters for mobile emission control systems;
optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications
networks; optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other
advanced optics and specialty glass solutions for a number of
industries including semiconductor, aerospace, defense, astronomy
and metrology.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Posts $365MM A&E Net Loss at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's third quarter 2010 results included an
after-tax net loss of US$365 million related to the previously
announced agreement to cede Asbestos and Environmental Pollution
liabilities to National Indemnity Company (Loss Portfolio
Transfer), according to a Company press release dated Nov. 1,
2010.

Of the US$365 million, about US$344 million was recognized in
continuing operations and US$21 million was recognized in
discontinued operations.

On Nov. 1, 2010, the Company announced third quarter 2010 results,
which included a net operating loss of US$158 million, or US$0.66
per common share, and net loss of US$140 million, or US$0.59 per
common share.

As previously reported on Aug. 31, 2010, the Company completed a
transaction with NICO, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.,
under which substantially all of the Company's legacy A&EP
liabilities were ceded to NICO.

Under the terms of the NICO transaction, effective Jan. 1, 2010,
the Company ceded about US$1.6 billion of net A&EP claim and
allocated claim adjustment expense reserves to NICO under a
retroactive reinsurance agreement with an aggregate limit of US$4
billion (Loss Portfolio Transfer).  The Company paid NICO a
reinsurance premium of US$2 billion and transferred to NICO billed
third party reinsurance receivables related to A&EP claims with a
net book value of US$215 million.

NICO deposited about US$2.2 billion in a collateral trust account
as security for its obligations to the Company.  In addition,
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. guaranteed the payment obligations of NICO
up to the full aggregate reinsurance limit as well as certain of
NICO's performance obligations under the trust agreement.

Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation is a
commercial insurance writer and a property and casualty company.
Its insurance products include standard commercial lines,
specialty lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty
coverages.  Its services include risk management, information
services, underwriting, risk control and claims administration.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Has $6.94MM Current Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$6,944,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
Nov. 1, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$20,587,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$6,944,000
as of Sept. 30, 2010, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$20,466,000, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products
for applications including: portable communications,
communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment,
consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Involved in Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc are named
as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Nov. 1, 2010, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago
to Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has resolved (by settlement or
dismissal) about 256,000 claims arising from the legacy Ingersoll
Rand businesses.

From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
through Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has resolved about 86,646 (by
settlement or dismissal) claims arising from the legacy Trane
business.

At Dec. 31, 2009, over 91% of the open claims against the Company
are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on
inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have
little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in
light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of
such claims.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ingersoll-Rand plc generates revenue and
cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service
of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that
include well-recognized, premium brand names such as Club Car,
Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Inc. Still Pursues Coverage Case in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in
litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 1, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates.  The environmental
claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been
resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later resolution.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add claims
for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities against 16
additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation.  The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.  Trane engaged in its first
mediation session with the NJ Litigation defendants on Jan. 18,
2006 and has engaged in active discussions since that time.

Trane has now settled with the majority of the insurers in the NJ
Litigation, collectively accounting for about 95 percent of its
recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of
Jan. 31, 2010.

Most, although not all, of Trane's settlement agreements
constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer
signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its
costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to
certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer
signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ingersoll-Rand plc generates revenue and
cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service
of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that
include well-recognized, premium brand names such as Club Car,
Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Posts $1.067BB Sept. 30 Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters
totaled US$1.067 billion at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.113 billion at
Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Nov. 1, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's liability for asbestos-related matters totaled
US$1.081 billion at June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
20, 2010)

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$370 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$424.2 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries were US$1.3 million for
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The income associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries were US$200,000 for the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries were US$12.7 million for
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$3.8
million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company records certain income and expenses associated with
its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries
within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold in 2000.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ingersoll-Rand plc generates revenue and
cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service
of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that
include well-recognized, premium brand names such as Club Car,
Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to be a defendant in
various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of
third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene.

These employees were allegedly exposed to such substances while
working at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of
acquired companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation is engaged in the exploration, development, production
and marketing of natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural
gas liquids (NGLs).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to be a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from
working in various facilities previously owned or operated by the
Company.  There are about 1,226 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of about 2,670 plaintiffs.

In addition, the claims of about 7,500 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts.

Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc., is primarily a
holding company.  The Company operates in the component products
industry through its subsidiary, CompX International Inc.  The
Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non-
controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,939 Claims Ongoing v. ITT Corp. at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 103,939 open claims against ITT Corporation filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 106,121
claims as of Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been
joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.  These claims allege that certain products sold by the
Company or its subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which contained
asbestos.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 4,748 new claims, 708
settlements, 5,271 dismissals, and 491 adjustments.  As of Sept.
30, 2009, the Company recorded 2,608 new claims, 774 settlements,
1,927 dismissals, and 3,208 adjustments.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any Company or
Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, in
a large majority of the 103,939 pending claims against the
Company, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury.
Many of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets
(including 41,328 claims in Mississippi).

The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of
resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the
Company.  As a result, management believes that a large majority
of the 103,939 open claims have little or no value.

The average cost per resolved claim was US$15,100 for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$11,300 for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is an
engineering and manufacturing company operating in three vital
markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security,
and motion and flow control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Records $246MM for Discontinued Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded an asbestos liability of US$246 million
for discontinued operations at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$75 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

The corresponding asset was US$244 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$64 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The liabilities were related to a business, which the Company
disposed of a number of years ago that is reported as a
discontinued operation.

The increase in the liability and asset resulted from an amended
cost sharing agreement executed in September 2010 with the entity
that acquired the disposed business.  The amended agreement
provided for a sharing of the claims settled between 2010 and 2019
naming the Company or the entity, which acquired the disposed
business.

In the future years, the liability for sharing the claims
gradually transitions away from the Company such that the Company
will have no responsibility for claims in nine to 10 years.  Under
the prior cost sharing agreement, costs were shared equally.  The
amended cost sharing agreement also provides for the sharing of
certain insurance policies.

Prior to executing the amended cost sharing agreement in September
2010, the Company recorded a liability for this discontinued
operation based on pending claims and unasserted claims estimated
to be filed over the next 10 years against the Company.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is an
engineering and manufacturing company operating in three vital
markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security,
and motion and flow control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Still Pursues Cannon Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation is involved in coverage litigation with various
insurers seeking recovery of costs incurred in connection with
certain environmental and product liabilities (including asbestos-
related liabilities).

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company commenced an action, Cannon
Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles
County, seeking recovery of costs related to asbestos product
liability losses.  During this coverage litigation, the Company
entered into coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE,
Wausau and Utica Mutual dated April 2004, September 2004, and
February 2007, respectively.

These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's
legacy asbestos liabilities.  The Company is prepared to pursue
legal remedies against the remaining defendants where reasonable
negotiations are not productive.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is an
engineering and manufacturing company operating in three vital
markets: water and fluids management, global defense and security,
and motion and flow control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Eastman Chemical Company and its operations are
parties to, or targets of, lawsuits and claims involving asbestos-
related matters.

No other asbestos-related issues were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 1, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Kingsport, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Company
produces chemicals, fibers, and plastics.  Among the Company's
operating segments are its CASPI (coatings, adhesives, specialty
polymers, and inks), Specialty Plastics (engineering polymers),
and Fibers (acetate tow and textile fibers) units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Still Facing 22,500 Claims in 8 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company, which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named
as a defendant in about 22,500 asbestos claims in state courts in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey, Texas and Illinois.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied
by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought
protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases.  Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases
have not been material.

Headquartered in Canonsburg, Pa., CONSOL Energy Inc. has two
principal business units: Coal and Gas. The activities of the Coal
unit are mining, preparation and marketing of steam coal.  The
Coal unit has four reportable segments: Steam, Low Volatile
Metallurgical, High Volatile Metallurgical and Other Coal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSP-Minnesota Finalizing EnviroTech Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Company (NSP-Minnesota) says that parties
continue to work to finalize settlement terms in a case involving
asbestos styled EnviroTech Remediation Services, Inc. vs.
Brandenburg Industrial Services Co., NSP- Minnesota, et al.

In 2009, a mechanic's lien foreclosure lawsuit was served against
NSP-Minnesota by EnviroTech Remediation Services, Inc. and other
defendants.  EnviroTech's claims against NSP-Minnesota arise out
of mechanics' liens recorded by EnviroTech and its subcontractors
against NSP-Minnesota's High Bridge generating plant property in
St. Paul, Minn., in the amount of about US$7 million plus
attorneys' fees and interest.

EnviroTech is a subcontractor to Brandenburg Industrial Services
Co. (Brandenburg), a general construction company hired by NSP-
Minnesota to perform demolition services and asbestos and lead
abatement work at the old High Bridge generating plant.
Brandenburg subcontracted part of its asbestos and lead abatement
work to EnviroTech.

EnviroTech claims it and its subcontractors furnished additional
work and materials during performance of the Brandenburg/
EnviroTech subcontract.  EnviroTech seeks additional compensation
from Brandenburg and NSP-Minnesota for the claimed extra work and
materials.

Further, EnviroTech notified NSP-Minnesota of an additional
US$3 million claim in the lawsuit for destruction of business
against Brandenburg and NSP-Minnesota.

In June 2010, NSP-Minnesota participated in court-ordered
mediation with EnviroTech and Brandenburg.  The parties did not
reach resolution at the mediation, but subsequently reached a
settlement in principle.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Northern States Power has the
following reportable segments: regulated electric, regulated
natural gas and all other.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Holding Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation
(or its predecessor, Armco Inc.), since 1990, has been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, there were about 426 such lawsuits pending
against AK Steel.  Most of these lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while
visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility.

About 40 percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of
exposure at a facility in Houston that has been closed since 1984.
When an asbestos lawsuit initially is filed, the complaint
typically does not include a specific dollar claim for damages.
About 130 of the 426 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2009, in which AK
Steel is a defendant include specific dollar claims for damages in
the filed complaints.  Those 130 cases involve a total of 2,489
plaintiffs and 17,089 defendants.

In these cases, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim
for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corporation
is a fully-integrated producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless
and electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly
owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation.

                             *********

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  * * *