CAR_Public/101112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 224

                             Headlines

ALLIANZ LIFE: Motion to Reconsider Class Suit Ruling Denied
AT&T MOBILITY: Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause Argued
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Minnesota
CHATTEM INC: Sued in Indiana for Deceptive Sales Practices
CLUB CAR: Recalls 5,000 Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles

DENNY'S CORP: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
DISCOVER FIN'L: Sued Over Discover Card Payment Protection Plan
ENTERPRISE GP: Sale Done Without Vote of Unitholders, Suit Says
FELTEX CARPETS: Class Action Case Against Directors Heard
FORD MOTOR: Sued for Concealing Engine Defects From Customers

GOOGLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights
HICKORY SPRINGS: Sued for Violations of Antitrust Laws
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Two Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Lawsuits
I-FLOW CORP: Segal & Greenberg Obtain Three-Defense Verdicts
ORLEANS PARISH: Motions in Class Action Under Advisement

ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls 29,000 Spark, Spitfire Inline Skates
SHELL OIL: Danhausen Family Not Entitled to $4.7MM Reimbursement
SPIRAL FOODS: Nov. 12 Directions Hearing Set for Bonsoy Suit
TOLL BROTHERS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $25 Million
WAL-MART STORES: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Gets Final OK

WELLS FARGO: Homeowners' Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio Settled
WILMINGTON TRUST: Board Sued Over Sale to M&T Bank


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Involved in 10,300 Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Still Party to 100 Main Rupture Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still a Defendant in Injury Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 191 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.72M Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has $701MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Records $1.88BB Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Sept. 30 Liability at $3.85M

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 540 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases in Miss. v. Transocean Ltd. Units Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Face 1,049 Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 63,472 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $58MM Sept. 30 Defense Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Pursues Insurance Action in N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $84MM Receivable at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Chem. Faces Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HECO Posts $35MM Sept. 30 Retirement Obligation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contract Flooring Fined $10,800 for Mishandling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hadley Man Penalized for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edwards Case v. 81 Firms Filed Oct. 15 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Lewis Penalized GBP20T for Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brumbaugh, Knapp Actions filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valentino Case v. 26 Firms Ongoing in Meigs Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDS Waste to Pay GBP3,479 for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shockley Case v. 57 Companies Filed on Oct. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Opposing Move Filed by Asbestos Trusts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Joiner's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Awarded $150T to Reduce Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Marshall Co. Bldg. Estimated at $30T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups to Fight Aussie Govt. Over Sucrogen Sale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Tyneside Boss Fined for Safety Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Ladish Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 56,960 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $2.34MM Asbestos, Bankruptcy Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.3MM Litigation Expense at Oct. 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $138.72MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,262 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Party to Howden Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Harbinger in Miss., La.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Posts $2.7MM Reserves at Oct. 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Fined Over Disposal Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simon's Charged for Disposal Breach in Parklea
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korea Woman Files Appeal Regarding Compensation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trascher Case


                             *********

ALLIANZ LIFE: Motion to Reconsider Class Suit Ruling Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in Los Angeles said she won't reconsider her August decision
allowing senior citizens to pursue class actions against Allianz
Life Insurance for allegedly tricking them into buying risky
deferred annuities.

A class of 200,000 senior citizens filed a racketeering lawsuit
against Allianz in 2005, claiming the company conspired with
marketers to lure them into buying deferred annuities, which are
investments that mature over a long period of time.  Allianz
allegedly imposed "substantial surrender charges" on seniors who
tried to withdraw their money early.

Allianz moved to dismiss the RICO claims of certain class members
on the basis that they were barred by a January judgment for
Allianz in another case.

But U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder allowed the claims to
proceed in her August order, saying Allianz should have raised
that argument before the final judgment.

Allianz then asked Judge Snyder to either reconsider her previous
order or certify questions for immediate appeal, citing "a laundry
lists of facts and evidence that it claims the court failed to
consider," according to the ruling.

Specifically, Allianz asked Judge Snyder to look at transcripts
from a multidistrict litigation hearing in 2007, which Allianz
said confirms the company's intention to assert claim preclusion.

Judge Snyder was not convinced.  She said Allianz "has not
demonstrated sufficient grounds for reconsideration."

"To the extent that Allianz seeks reconsideration on the grounds
that the court failed to consider material facts and evidence
presented to the court, and accepted as true plaintiffs' factual
assertions without any evidence to support those assertions, these
claimed errors are not simply supported by the record," she wrote.

Judge Snyder added that certification for immediate appeal "is not
warranted under the present circumstances," because Allianz failed
to show that such an appeal presented the type of "exceptional
circumstances" required for judicial review.

A copy of the Honorable Christina Snyder's Nov. 1, 2010, Order in
Negrete, et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North
America, Case No. 05-cv-06838 (C.D. Calif.), and Healey v. Allianz
Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 05-cv-08908
(C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Allianz.pdf


AT&T MOBILITY: Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause Argued
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that the Supreme
Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether federal arbitration law
preempts California's decision that a class-action ban in an
arbitration clause is unconscionable.

Vincent and Liza Concepcion brought a class action against AT&T
Mobility for allegedly fraudulent taxes on their cell phone
contract.  The district court held that AT&T's arbitration clause
blocking class actions was unconscionable, and thus unenforceable.
The United States District Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed,
finding that the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt
California's law on unconscionability.

The justices seemed reluctant to step in and tell California
what's unconscionable.

"Are we going to tell the state of California what it has to
consider unconscionable?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked AT&T's
attorney, Andrew Pincus.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accused Mr. Pincus of failing to show
where California had said it was applying a different concept of
unconscionability to the cell phone contract than it did for other
contracts.

Mr. Pincus replied that although the state hasn't said so, it was
applying a different standard.  He argued that the California
statute defining unconscionability states that the determination
should be made at the time of the contract, and in this case, the
determination was made when the dispute arose.

Mr. Pincus said language in the state law, stating that the
determination apply to "any contract," means the law has to apply
generally to contracts.

Justice Antonin Scalia argued that some elements of
unconscionability can only arise in a litigation or arbitration
context, such as requiring the party to arbitrate in a distant
location, and cannot possibly apply to other contracts.

Mr. Pincus said the principles California applied in order to find
unconscionability were different in the Concepcion case than
principles applied in other contexts.

Justice Stephen Breyer, trying to illustrate where California drew
the line, compared it to Switzerland having a law saying it would
only buy milk from cows in pastures higher than 9,000 feet, which
clearly discriminates, but if it said it wants cows that passed
the tuberculin test, that doesn't discriminate.

"Here . . . the class arbitration exists. . . . So where is the
9,000-foot cow?" Justice Breyer asked.  "Where is the
discrimination?"

Mr. Pincus said the "9,000-foot meadow" fit the case, because the
statute requires full use of discovery procedures in court and in
arbitration.

Justice Elena Kagan asked why Mr. Pincus said it was okay for a
state to determine that a provision barring certain kinds of
attorney's fees or a law prohibiting certain kinds of discovery
provisions was unconscionable, but it could not do the same for a
class arbitration provision.

"What separates the two?" she asked.

Mr. Pincus argued that the state was working against its own
"traditional unconscionability doctrine," focusing on unfairness
to third parties instead of distinctly on the party who filed
suit.

Justice Kagan pointed out that the state was allowed to change its
mind and start taking into account third parties.

"It's the state's unconscionability doctrine," she said.

"But it is not the state's general unconscionability doctrine,
Justice Kagan," Mr. Pincus said, adding that the state has failed
to adopt a general statute concerning third parties.

"[S]o what if they've never done this before?" Justice Breyer
asked.  "They sure have done it now.  And what's the basis for
saying that the Arbitration Act or any other part of federal law
forbids California from doing that?"

Chief Justice John Roberts said considering the Concepcions as
third parties was a "different mode of analysis" than general
contract law, which construes third parties as the general public,
not the specific party bringing the case.

Deepak Gupta, arguing for the Concepcions, said they were third
parties because they did not know the point at which they would
detect the fraud when they signed up for the cell phone contract.
When Justice Samuel Alito asked why the Concepcions were "better
off" with a class adjudication, Mr. Gupta replied that when they
enter into the contract, it's not reasonable for them to give up
the benefits they would get from a class action.  A class action
motivates lawyers and others to find fraud, Mr. Gupta said.

Justice Kagan asked Mr. Gupta what he thought of AT&T's claim that
a ruling for the Concepcions would effectively "kill off" class
arbitration because it includes all the procedures and liability
but no judicial review.

Mr. Gupta argued that class arbitrations have existed for 25
years, citing examples of their use.

A copy of the transcripts of the oral arguments in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion, et ux., No. 09-893 (U.S.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/gT4H2

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street NW
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000

AT&T Mobility is represented by:

          Andrew J. Pincus, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263 3220
          E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Capella Education is the
latest to face a shareholder class action accusing it of inflating
its share price by concealing its abusive and deceptive
recruitment and student loan tactics, in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Police Pension Fund of Peoria v.
Capella Education Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04474
(D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/ForProfit.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota St.
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: 651-287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          David J. George, 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


CHATTEM INC: Sued in Indiana for Deceptive Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that Dexatrim weight loss pills contain
carcinogenic hexavalent chromium -- and don't even help you lose
weight.  The class adds that the drugmaker, Chattem, does not list
the carcinogen in the ingredients, though it knows or should know
of its presence.

The two named plaintiffs claim that in March this year an
independent lab -- ConsumerLab.com -- reported that Dexatrim
contains hexavalent chromium.  ConsumerLab tested "various weight
loss supplements, including Dexatrim, to determine whether the
products met the claims on the labels regarding the ingredients,
and moreover, whether the products contained any harmful
ingredients," according to the complaint.

"Among other things, the report states that Dexatrim was
contaminated with the hazardous chemical hexavalent chromium, also
referred to as Cr(VI) in the amounts of 1.6 to 3.3 mcg."

The complaint claims that the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has found that exposure to hexavalent chromium can
increase the risk of lung cancer, and that "other adverse health
effects associated with Cr(VI) exposure include dermal irritation,
skin ulceration, allergic contact dermatitis, occupational asthma,
nasal irritation and ulceration, perforated nasal septa, rhinitis,
nosebleed, respiratory irritation, nasal cancer, sinus cancer, eye
irritation and damage, perforated eardrums, kidney damage, liver
damage, pulmonary congestion and edema, epigastric pain, and
erosion and discoloration of the teeth."

The complaint adds: "The [ConsumerLab] report further concludes
that Dexatrim contains 'a tea blend and ginseng, which may provide
an "energizing" feeling, but [are] not known to cause wright
loss,' and also 'contains many B vitamins and iodine which,
although needed for metabolism, will not cause weight loss.'"

And, the complaint states: "Although Chattem goes to great lengths
to promote the healthfulness and safety of Dexatrim, none of
Chattem's promotional materials or labels disclosed the fact the
Dexatrim contains hexavalent chromium, or provided any warning
concerning the potential adverse health effects associated with
ingestion of the hazardous chemical."

As a diet supplement, Dexatrim is loosely regulated, if at all, by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Dexatrim brand "has suffered dramatic sales losses in recent
years," according to the Nutrition Business Journal, which
reported that Chattem's "wholesale supplement sales in the United
States totaled $19.5 million in its fiscal year 2008."

The class seeks damages for deceptive sales practices, breach of
warranty, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and
also wants the company ordered to correct its advertising.

A copy of the Complaint in Hughes v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 10-
cv-01407 (S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Dexatrim.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-8787

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070

               - and -

          James H. McFerrin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIM MCFERRIN
          2117 Magnolia Avenue So., Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 870-5704

               - and -

          Robert S. Tellman, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROB TELLMAN
          2117 Magnolia Avenue So., Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 370-1998

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas
          Eighteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 579-4625

               - and -

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788


CLUB CAR: Recalls 5,000 Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Club Car, LLC of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,000 Golf cars and hospitality, utility and transport
vehicles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The brake pedal can crack and separate, resulting in a loss of
braking ability.  This can result in a crash.

Club Car has received two reports of brake pedals breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Model 2010 DS golf cars and hospitality,
utility and transport vehicles used for short-distance
transportation.  They are various sizes, models and colors. The
vehicles can be identified by the serial number, which is above
and to the right of the accelerator pedal.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11708.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through authorized Club Car dealers nationwide from April
2010 through July 2010 for between $6,000 and $17,000.

Club Car is providing a free inspection and replacement of the
brake pedal.  The company is contacting its customers directly.
For more information, contact Club Car at (800) 227-0739, ext.
3580 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or go to the
firm's Web site at http://www.clubcar.com/


DENNY'S CORP: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Denny's Corporation stiff
workers for overtime, a class action claims in California Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Paiva v. Denny's Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 37-2010-00103831 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.)
(Oberholtzer, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Dennys.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          110 Pine Avenue, Suite 725
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (888) 474-7242


DISCOVER FIN'L: Sued Over Discover Card Payment Protection Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
five St. Clair County residents have filed a class action against
Discover Card for enrolling them in a costly payment protection
plan.

Mark Hyzy, Holly Satterlee, Wilbur Thomas, Kenneth Busby and
Margaret McRae filed the lawsuit Oct. 26 in St. Clair County on
behalf of all others in the same situation.  The suit names
Discover Financial Services Inc. and DFS Services LLC as
defendants.

They are represented by John Carey, former St. Clair County
Circuit Judge Michael O'Malley, Francis Flynn, Jr., Tiffany
Yiatras and Michael Flannery of Carey Danis & Lowe in St. Louis.
Attorneys from Nagel Rice and Paris Ackerman and Schmierer of
Roseland, N.J. also represent the proposed class.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hyzy, Ms. Satterlee, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Busby, Ms. McRae and other Illinoisans were enrolled in a
payment protection program unwillingly and without their
knowledge.  The plan charges those enrolled a fee based on a
percentage of their Discover Card balance at the end of the month.

Members of the proposed class say they were signed up for the
Discover Card program without consent, saying they only agreed to
be sent promotional materials related to the plan.  They also
claim the credit card company overcharged them and made it
difficult to cancel membership in the plan.

Mr. Hyzy says he was charged $374 in fees related to the plan.
Thomas claims he was charged $54.  Mr. Busby was allegedly charged
$32.

The proposed members allege consumer fraud, deceptive business
practices and unjust enrichment.  They are asking for unspecified
damages and court costs.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case No. 10-L-563


ENTERPRISE GP: Sale Done Without Vote of Unitholders, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports shareholders told a Harris County
Court the $9 billion sale of Enterprise GP Holdings to Enterprise
Products was done without a vote of Enterprise GP "unitholders".

A copy of the Complaint in Ailshie v. Enterprise Products
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 2010-73531 (Tex. Dist. Ct.,
Harris Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN L.L.P.
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
          5215 North O'Connor Blvd., Suite 1900
          Irving, TX 75039
          Telephone: (972) 831-1188


FELTEX CARPETS: Class Action Case Against Directors Heard
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gregor, writing for NZ Herald News, reports a four-day
hearing is being held in the High Court at Christchurch this week
to determine whether the investors can take a class action case
against former Feltex Carpets Ltd. directors.

Investors are claiming the company's prospectus in 2004, the year
it floated, contained information that was misleading or wrong, or
omitted to make information available that would have affected
people's decision to invest in Feltex.

The defendants include former chairman Tim Saunders, former chief
executive Sam Magill and former directors John Feeney, Craig
Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers.  Former
director John Hagen is not involved in these proceedings.  The
defendants have denied the claims.

In August, former Feltex directors Saunders, Feeney, Hunter,
Thomas and Hagen were found not guilty of alleged Securities Act
breaches at the Auckland District Court.

Also targeted in the action is Credit Suisse First Boston Asian
Merchant Partners, who offered Feltex for sale, Credit Suisse
Private Equity and joint lead float managers, First New Zealand
Capital and Forsyth Barr.

Feltex's collapsed in 2006 cost 8,000 investors millions.


FORD MOTOR: Sued for Concealing Engine Defects From Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford's 6-liter diesel engine
for model years 2003-07 was so defective that Ford sued
co-defendant Navistar, which made them, for the "unprecedented
problems," while it concealed the defects from customers, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complain in Burns v. Navistar, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02295 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Ford.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          12707 High Bluff Dr., Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights
-----------------------------------------------
Jason Weber, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Google Inc., Case no. 10-cv-05035 (N.D. Calif.
November 5, 2010), brings claims against the global technology
company on behalf of individuals or entities in the United States
who, from June 30, 2009, to the present, downloaded, installed,
and used Google Toolbar with the result that their personally
identifiable information, including URLs visited, was transmitted
without their informed consent.

Google Toolbar is a downloadable software designed to aid users in
searching and browsing the web.  Mr. Weber explains that for some
of Toolbar's features to work, such as features to display
additional information about the web page the user is viewing,
Toolbar transmits to Google certain information about the user's
web activity, including the specific pages the user views.

Mr. Weber says that contrary to Google's statements that a user
can maintain web-browsing privacy by disabling these features, in
reality Toolbar continued to transmit to Google the address of
every web page viewed by the user, including personal information
about the user.  Mr. Weber relates that for many months Google
knew about serious discrepancies between its statements and how
Toolbar actually functioned, but it failed to take any corrective
action until only January 2010, after publicity revealed the
details of Toolbar's improper data collection.

By transmitting personally identifiable information about users of
its Google Toolbar including their Internet activities, Mr. Weber
says Google violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Unfair Competition Law, the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 400-1050
          E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com


HICKORY SPRINGS: Sued for Violations of Antitrust Laws
------------------------------------------------------
East Bay Floorcovering, Inc., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-05045 (N.D. Calif. November 8, 2010), accuses
the Polyurethane Foam manufacturer of conspiring with other co-
defendants to fix prices of Polyurethane Foam sold in the United
States, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15.  As of result of
Defendants' illegal activities, East Bay, a flooring products
company, says it and other Class Members paid artificially
inflated prices for Polyurethane Foam and have suffered antitrust
injury to their business or property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
          Lauren C. Russell, Esq.
          TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP
          2280 Union Street
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 563-7200
          E-mail: malioto@tatp.com
                  laurenrussell@tatp.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Patane, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. PATANE
          2280 Union Street
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 563-7200
          E-mail: jpatane@tatp.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Two Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Benoit, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co. said it's facing two purported class-action suits
alleging foreclosure fraud after the bank temporarily halted
foreclosures in September.

The company also became the latest big Wall Street bank to
disclose a laundry list of lawsuits it is facing that allege the
banks' underwriting of mortgages used in securitizations harmed
investors in those securitizations.

In its quarterly filing Tuesday, J.P. Morgan said it and its
Washington Mutual Bank and Chase Home Finance LLC divisions are
facing suits in Illinois and California that are seeking class
action status. The lawsuits allege "common law fraud and
misrepresentation, as well as violations of state consumer fraud
statutes."

The filing said the review of the foreclosure process, which arose
as banks across the country discovered problems in the paperwork
including so-called "robo-signers," is ongoing. It has found
evidence of employees not verifying documents their signatures
suggested they verified, but J.P. Morgan reiterated it believed
the underlying facts behind the foreclosures were "materially
accurate."

The filing reiterated that the bank is facing increasing costs
because of the foreclosure freeze but that it hopes to start
filing again "expeditiously."

The bank also said it encountered the same lawsuits other banks,
including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., have said they
face, including suits by the Federal Home Loan Banks and Charles
Schwab Corp. J.P. Morgan said it was facing suits from nine
Federal Home Loan Banks, Cambridge Place Investment Management
Inc. and Schwab.

Those suits, in various state and federal courts across the
country, allege largely the same: that banks didn't present the
material facts about the underlying mortgages that made up the
mortgage-backed securities the plaintiffs invested in.


I-FLOW CORP: Segal & Greenberg Obtain Three-Defense Verdicts
------------------------------------------------------------
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. and Greenberg Traurig,
LLP, obtained three defense verdicts at trial in favor of medical
device manufacturer I-Flow Corporation.  A federal jury in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon returned
defense verdicts on all counts in favor of I-Flow, and against
each of three plaintiffs whose cases had been consolidated for
trial.  The plaintiffs sought between $11 million and $19 million
in total damages for alleged permanent, disabling shoulder
injuries known as post-arthroscopic glenohumeral chondrolysis.
All three plaintiffs claimed that they sustained PAGCL after
infusion pumps manufactured by I-Flow were used to infuse local
anesthetics into their shoulders following arthroscopic surgeries
they underwent in 2004.

After four weeks of evidence and five hours of deliberation, the
jury returned three unanimous defense verdicts for I-Flow.  The
jury found that plaintiffs failed to prove that the pumps were
defective, or that there were inadequate warnings related to the
pumps or use of them, or that the pumps caused the plaintiffs'
alleged injuries.  The consolidated cases, Christina McClellan v.
I-Flow Corporation, et al., Juan Huerta v. I-Flow Inc., et al.,
and Danny Arvidson v. DJO, LLC, et al., were decided on Friday,
October 15, 2010.

The defense trial team was led by Jeffrey Singer and Mark Crane of
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. and Lori Cohen and Scott
Campbell of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.  The cases are the first in
the infusion pump litigation to be tried by this defense team.



ORLEANS PARISH: Motions in Class Action Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for Louisiana Record, reports
Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Ethel Julien heard
almost 20 motions on Nov. 5 in a class action suit filed by former
employees of the Orleans Parish School Board after they were fired
following hurricane Katrina.

New Orleans attorneys Willie Zanders, Suzette Bagneris, Clarence
Roby, Anthony Irpino, Roderick Alvendia, Juana Lombard, Charles
Samuel, and Walter Willard are representing the class of an
estimated 8,000 OPSB employees that were laid off or forced to
retire following the state of Louisiana's overhaul of the OPSB
through the Recovery School District.

New Orleans attorneys William Aaron Jr. and Renee Smith are
representing the OPSB.  Baton Rouge attorneys Michael Rubin, Brent
Hicks, Jon Giblin and Willa Smith and assistant Attorney General
Angelique Freel are representing the state agencies.

OPSB and RSD counsel filed several motions in response to the
plaintiffs fifth supplemental petition for damages which alleges
all the school boards are liable for damages under the Louisiana
Teacher Tenure Law and Reduction in Force Law.

The state's exception cites a June 11 ruling in the First Circuit
court in the case Hays v. BESE which stated that the TTL "does not
apply to reductions-in-force; rather when a reduction in force is
implemented the Reduction in Force statute (La. R.S. 17:81.4)
alone is controlling.  The defense argues that the plaintiffs
cannot allege violations of the TTL and RFL because the laws "are
mutually exclusive."

Plaintiffs argue that the RSD and OPSB "conspired to and, in fact,
committed wrongful conduct which included, but was not limited to,
the following: a) wrongful termination of plaintiffs and class
members; and/or b) intentional interference with the plaintiffs'
and class members' employment contracts and/or property rights."

Judge Julien took the plaintiffs' motions under advisement.  She
approved a state motion for leave to file a cross claim against
the OPSB.

Orleans Parish Case 2005-12244


ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls 29,000 Spark, Spitfire Inline Skates
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rollerblade USA, of West Lebanon, N.H., announced a voluntary
recall of about 29,000 pairs of Spark, Spitfire Inline Skates.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The frame mounting bolts and wheel axle bolts can be loose on new
skates.  Loose wheels or frames on the skates can cause the rider
to fall, posing a risk of injury.

Rollerblade USA has received 31 reports of loose bolts, including
one report of a fall resulting in minor injuries that required
medical attention.

This recall involves the following models of inline skates
purchased since September 2009.

Spark Pro, Men's (SKU# 00792200816), Black
Spark Pro, Women's (SKU# 007923007E2), Anthracite (Grey)
Spark 80, Men's (SKU# 00702800956), Black
Spark 80, Women's (SKU# 007029009A6), Anthracite (Grey)
Spitfire, Boy's (SKU# 00705500741), Black
Spitfire, Girl's (SKU# 007056007Y8), Silver
Spitfire S, Boy's (SKU# 00705700956), Black
Spitfire S, Girl's (SKU# 007058009A7), Anthracite (Grey)
Spitfire LX, (SKU# 00705000955), Silver

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11033.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand, Vietnam and
China and sold through Sporting goods stores nationwide and on the
Internet from September 2009 through July 2010 for between $80 and
$160.

Consumers should immediately inspect all wheel-axle and frame-
mounting bolts to ensure that they are properly tightened.
Rollerblade USA recommends regular inspection and tightening of
bolts.  After wheel-axle and frame mounting bolts are inspected
and tightened if needed, products are acceptable for sale & use.
Video instructions on bolt tightening and maintenance are
available at http://www.rollerblade.com/ For additional
information, contact Rollerblade USA at (800) 232-7655 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rollerblade.com/


SHELL OIL: Danhausen Family Not Entitled to $4.7MM Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Angelica Diehn at Courthouse News Service reports that an
Illinois family is not entitled to $4.7 million of a $26 million
class-action settlement after thousands of gallons of gas from a
Shell Oil Co. pipeline spilled onto their farm in 1988, a state
appeals court ruled.

Farmers and property owners sued Shell in 2001 after gas from its
pipeline spilled onto farmland in Kankakee County.  Their lawsuit
resulted in a 2007 class-action settlement for $26 million.

The Danhausen family, whose farm was contaminated by the spill,
challenged the decision of the settlement administrator, who
granted them $120,489 as reimbursement for the damage to their
property and water.

The Danhausen estate claimed it was entitled to $1.17 million for
diminution of property value and $3.52 million for nuisance and
quiet enjoyment.

The trial court ruled that because Shell had paid the Danhausens
an undisclosed amount of rent, $120,489 was adequate compensation.
The court found no evidence that the Danhausens planned to
subdivide the property for residential development.

The 3rd District Appellate Court, based in Ottawa, Ill., agreed
with the trial court that the settlement formula was "fair,
reasonable and adequate."

Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Robert L. Carter said the
Danhausen estate "does not provide any legal or factual support
for its claim."

"While it is undisputed that the gasoline spill occurred on the
Danhausen estate's property, it did not present adequate evidence
that it was entitled to a larger distribution of the settlement
fund for these damages," Justice Carter concluded.

A copy of the Opinion in Quick, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et
al., No. 3-09-0987 (Ill. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/gT5sq


SPIRAL FOODS: Nov. 12 Directions Hearing Set for Bonsoy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kym Agius, writing for AAP, reports more than 150 people have
joined a class action against the distributor of a soy milk
product found to contain excessive levels of iodine.

Bonsoy voluntarily recalled its product in December 2009 after it
was found to contain iodine levels 1000 times higher than rival
brands, with one glass containing seven times the safe dose of the
mineral.

Maurice Blackburn lawyers launched a class action about five weeks
ago in the Victorian Supreme Court alleging negligence on the part
of the product's Australian distributor, Spiral Foods.

At that time, 25 people were part of the class action.

Since then, the number has ballooned to 155, the law firm's
Queensland principal Rod Hodgson said on Tuesday.

"The scale of this problem is much bigger than originally
thought," Mr. Hodgson told reporters in Brisbane.

"Women have had miscarriages or babies with abnormalities."

Others allegedly lapsed into comas, had their thyroids removed,
and reported heart palpations, eyesight and hair loss.

Some will be on medication for the rest of their lives,
Mr. Hodgson said.

The class action alleges the distribution company was negligent
because it failed to test the milk.  Compensation is being sought
for medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering.

Brisbane woman Shannon Cotterill drank Bonsoy soy milk over four
years.

After giving birth to her daughter Lucy late last year, her health
took a downward spiral.

"I thought I was going to die," she told reporters in Brisbane.

Her symptoms included a resting heart rate of 150 beats per
minute, hair loss, fatigue, joint pain and anxiety.

She said she was admitted to hospital three times, stopped breast
feeding and was forced to extend her maternity leave, therefore
missing out on possible promotions at work.

Ms. Cotterill's daughter Lucy, now 11 months, has lumps in her
breast tissue, and tests are being done to see if it is linked to
high iodine levels.

"I put Lucy to bed every night, kiss her and tell her I love her
and that I'll see her in the morning, then I silently wish for her
not to ever suffer because of this," Ms. Cotterill said.

Mr. Hodgson said he expected more people to join the class action.

"We believe that this is the tip of the iceberg," he said.

"Any person who had some unexplained health problems between 2003
and last Christmas, which might have been thought to have been due
to excess iodine should obtain medical advice, but if they drank
Bonsoy, there is some realistic prospect that their health
problems could be attributed to this product."

The class action will go to a directions hearing in the Victorian
Supreme Court this Friday, November 12.

The excessive iodine was traced to a type of seaweed used in the
manufacture of Bonsoy, and samples of the soy drink revealed
iodine concentrations from 25,000 to 27,000 micrograms per litre.

A reformulated Bonsoy product, excluding seaweed, was reintroduced
to the Australian market this year.

Comment has been sought from Spiral Foods.


TOLL BROTHERS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $25 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Wright, writing for International Construction magazine,
reports US luxury house builder Toll Brothers has paid $25 million
to settle a long-running class action lawsuit accusing it of
misleading investors over its financial health during the downturn
in the housing market.

Court documents filed on October 28 reveal that the parties agreed
to settle after weighing up their options during mediation.

The Toll Brothers case was among the first of the subprime-related
securities suits when it was filed in April 2007.  The house
builder had moved to dismiss the complaint that year, but the
court denied this motion and allowed the class action to proceed.

The complaint alleged that Toll Brothers -- which specializes in
building large, expensive homes for high-end buyers -- made a
series of false and misleading statements indicating that its
business model was immune from the adverse economic conditions
affecting the mainstream housing market.

The complaint states: "Contrary to the positive statements
defendants were making publicly they knew that a number of adverse
developments were negatively impacting their business and
signaling much slower growth than they were leading investors to
expect."

Shortly after a 2005 stock sale which netted the company over
$617 million, Toll Brothers' share price plummeted 43 percent from
its class-period high.  The company revealed in a series of
disclosures that deteriorating demand for luxury homes in the US
had in fact lead to a decline in sales.

According to the settlement stipulation, the investors reached the
decision to settle after recognizing the "expense, length and
complexity of continued proceedings".

US district Judge Daniel Jones stipulated in the filing that the
$25 million be paid to investors who bought Toll Brothers shares
between December 9, 2004 and November 8, 2005.

Toll Brothers denies all wrongdoing in reaching the settlement --
an agreement which is subject to court approval.


WAL-MART STORES: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge Saundra B. Armstrong, has granted final approval
to the settlement of a wage and hour class action suit against
Wal-Mart in California, In re Wal-Mart Stores Wage and Hour
Litigation, Case No. 02069SBA (Smith Case No. C-06-02069SBA and
Ballard Case No. C-06-05411SBA).  The settlement, which provides
for a payment of between $43 million and $86 million (including
claims, costs, and attorneys' fees), concludes more than four
years of litigation concerning the payment of wages to California
associates.  In addition, as part of the settlement, Wal-Mart has
agreed to continue to maintain electronic systems that will
protect the rights of workers.

"This settlement represents an extraordinary result for the
members of this class, with up to $86 million being paid by
Wal-Mart to resolve the claim that class members were underpaid
approximately $12 million in vacation and other wages when their
employment with Wal-Mart ended.  The potential additional $74
million payment represents interest and statutorily imposed
expenses that Wal-Mart may have faced had the matter proceeded to
trial," said Louis Marlin of Marlin & Saltzman, one of the counsel
for the class.  "The case has been hard fought since it was filed
four years ago, with Wal-Mart's lawyers presenting a vigorous
defense. Marlin & Saltzman, along with our co-counsel, including
Peter Hart, have fought hard for the class members."

"Our policy is to pay our associates in an accurate and timely
manner.  Our communications, processes and systems will help
ensure that's the case," said Greg Rossiter, Wal-Mart
spokesperson.


WELLS FARGO: Homeowners' Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio Settled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Perotti, Esq., at Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A., in Lake
County, Ohio, settled a multi-million dollar class action suit on
behalf of homeowners against Wells Fargo (Bartley v. Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. CV-02-469375 Coleman v. Wells Fargo
Bank West N.A., Case No. CV-02-471327).

Wells Fargo Bank failed to release mortgage liens for tens of
thousands of homeowners in Ohio between 1996 and 2007.  This
violates Ohio law which requires release of the liens within 90
days after payoff.  Wells Fargo must clear the title for anyone
still having an improper lien.  Both are Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas.

"The case took five years to litigate with the bank forcing us to
go all the way to the Court of Appeals, but we ended up being able
to help the class members," commented Attorney Patrick Perotti.
"Once again another huge bank must do the right thing.  They have
to pay every person where they left a lien on the home in
violation of law."

Lake County law firm, Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. and its 25
attorneys practice in Ohio and throughout the United States.  They
have successfully handled over $100 Million Dollars in class
actions.  With over 65 professional staff and lawyers, the firm
offers a full range of legal services for businesses, individuals,
and families.  Recently Mr. Perotti was selected in the Top 75
Trial Lawyers in the United States.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Board Sued Over Sale to M&T Bank
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Yi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 5959- (Del. Ch. Ct.
November 5, 2010), brings claims against the directors of
Wilmington Trust, M&T Bank Corporation, and MTB One, Inc. (an
affiliate of M&T), for directly breaching or aiding breaches of
fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the public shareholders of
Wilmington Trust, arising out of their agreement to sell the
Company to M&T for inadequate consideration and via a flawed
process.

On October 31, 2010, Wilmington Trust entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger pursuant to which M&T will acquire all of
Wilmington Trust's outstanding shares of common stock for
approximately $351 million, after which Wilmington Trust will
merge into an M&T controlled entity.  The proposed transaction has
been approved by Wilmington Trust's Board of Directors.  In his
complaint, Mr. Yi says each Wilmington Trust common stockholder
will receive 0.051372 shares of M&T common stock, with a value of
$3.84 per share of Company common stock (based on the closing
price of M&T common stock on Friday, October 29, 2010), and that
the offer price is at a 46% discount to the closing trading price
of the Company's common stock on October 29, 2010.

"The proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process that
is designed to ensure the sale of Wilmington Trust to M&T on terms
preferential to M&T, but detrimental to plaintiff and the other
public shareholders of Wilmington Trust," Mr. Yi said in his
complaint.

Wilmington Trust, through its subsidiary, Wilmington Trust
Company, provides deposit-taking, lending, fiduciary, trustee,
financial planning, investment consulting, asset management,
insurance, broker-dealer, and administrative
services in the United States and internationally.

M&T operates as the holding company for M&T Bank and M&T Bank,
National Association that provide commercial and retail banking
services to individuals, corporations and other businesses, and
institutions.

Mr. Yi states that Wilmington Trust has been improperly valued and
that shareholders will not likely receive adequate or fair value
for their Wilmington Trust common stock in the proposed
transaction.  Further, Mr. Yi says the merger agreement contains
terms designed to favor the proposed transaction and discourage
alternative bids, including: (a) a non-solicitation clause, (b) a
notification clause, meaning the Company must inform M&T of any
unsolicited offer for the Company, and thereby provide M&T with an
opportunity to match the unsolicited offer, and (c) a $30 million
termination fee, payable by Wilmington Trust to M&T, representing
"an unreasonable 8.5% of the total proposed transaction."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LAONG, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          Loren R. Ungar, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19807
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., for over 30 years, has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Nov. 1, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.  As of the April
16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against
it, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served on the
Company.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Involved in 10,300 Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is currently involved in about 10,300 other
cases (about 38,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and
similar amounts of monetary damages per case, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 1, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation.  Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named
in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about
11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's
asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million per claim.

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the separate
corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting
claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products.

Those cases have been covered by insurance without material impact
to the Company to date.

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

The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its
equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in
Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation,
contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a
total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present value
US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after the plan's
effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June 2004.

In addition, the 2003 Plan provided that the Company would assign
certain insurance policy proceeds from its primary insurance and a
portion of its excess insurance.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan for reasons it set out in a
memorandum opinion.  Several parties, including the Company, filed
motions for reconsideration.  On Jan. 29, 2009, a proposed plan of
reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) resolving issues raised by
the Court in denying confirmation of the 2003 Plan was filed with
the Bankruptcy Court.

Confirmation hearings on the Amended PCC Plan were held in June
2010 and briefs discussing the legal issues have been filed.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be US$642 million at Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with an estimate of the liability of US$682 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

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: CECONY Still Party to 100 Main Rupture Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 lawsuits are still pending against Consolidated Edison,
Inc. concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York's steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July 2007.

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured.  It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident.  Several buildings in
the area were damaged.  Debris from the incident included dirt and
mud containing asbestos.

The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods.  The suits seek
generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for personal injury, property damage and business
interruption.  The Company has not accrued a liability for the
suits.

The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes
that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover
most of the Company's costs, which the Company is unable to
estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability
to others in connection with the incident.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to 3.3 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries -- Consolidated
Edison of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
-- are still defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in New York
State and federal courts.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.  The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them.

The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits
total billions of dollars.  In 2008, CECONY estimated that its
aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and
additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is
US$9 million.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits
were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$109 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$34 million.

At Sept. 30, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$9 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were
US$9 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was
US$104 million, and its regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$34 million.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to 3.3 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still a Defendant in Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to be a defendant in certain lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in
products made by the Company, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 2, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs.

Headquartered in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corporation designs and
manufactures custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum systems,
condensers, liquid ring pump packages and heat exchangers.  Its
equipment is used in critical applications in the petrochemical,
oil refining and electric power generation industries, including
cogeneration and geothermal plants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 191 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced about 191 pending asbestos-related claims
as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with about 167 pending claims at
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company faced about 181 pending asbestos-related claims at
June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Of the 191 claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2010, about 62 claims do
not specify the amount of damages sought, about 126 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (less than 2% of the
total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these three claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive
damages of US$20 million each; and two claims each allege
compensatory damages of US$65 million and punitive damages of
US$60 million.  These three claims name between 10 and 76
defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants.  The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.  For the nine month period ended Sept. 30, 2010, the
Company was able to have 140 claims dismissed and settled 18
claims.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.  Such settlements totaled about
US$4.9 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared
with US$5.7 million during the first nine months of 2009 and about
US$7.6 million for the full year 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: Standard Motor Posts $24.72M Sept. 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. accrued an asbestos liability of
US$24,722,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$24,874,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2010.

The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$24,135,000 as of
June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has $701MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s three-month and nine-month periods ended Oct. 3,
2010 include an additional US$701 million charge for asbestos
litigation, according to a Company press release dated Nov. 2,
2010.

This charge was related to the Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Quigley Company, Inc.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its products include cholesterol-lowering
Lipitor, pain management drugs Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia
vaccine Prevnar, high-blood-pressure therapy Norvasc, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Records $1.88BB Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos
liability amounted to US$1.888 billion for three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Nov. 2, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net asbestos liability was US$1.944 billion for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 13, 2010)

Paid asbestos-related losses and loss adjustment expense (LAE)
were US$56 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010.
Paid asbestos-related losses and LAE were US$176 million for the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services
Group, Inc. is a financial holding company for a group of
subsidiaries that provide investment products and life and
property and casualty insurance to both individual and business
customers in the United States.  The Company continues to
administer business previously sold in Japan and the U.K.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Sept. 30 Liability at $3.85M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement
liability amounted to US$3,849,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$5,486,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 2, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos abatement liability amounted
to US$3,849,000 as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 20, 2010)

Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that operate
long-term care facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute
care services, with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty
medical care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 540 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2010, faced about 540
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company was involved in about 550
asbestos-related lawsuits.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation.

Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants.
To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including
settlement costs, have not been significant.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$22 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., MeadWestvaco Corporation is a
global packaging company that provides packaging solutions to many
of the world's brands in the healthcare, personal and beauty care,
food, beverage, tobacco and home and garden industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases in Miss. v. Transocean Ltd. Units Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries are still defendants in
asbestos-related lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named, along
with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints
filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of
exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.

A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial,
subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a
separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints
were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts.  The amended complaints
resulted in one of the Company's subsidiaries being named as a
direct defendant in seven cases.  The Company has or may have an
indirect interest in an additional 17 cases.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with
drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence,
products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the
Jones Act and general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In each of these cases, the complaints have named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.

None of the cases in which one of the Company's subsidiaries is a
named defendant has been scheduled for trial in 2010, and the
preliminary information available on these claims is not
sufficient to determine if there is an identifiable period for
alleged exposure to asbestos, whether any asbestos exposure in
fact occurred, the vessels potentially involved in the claims, or
the basis on which the plaintiffs would support claims that their
injuries were related to exposure to asbestos.

However, the initial evidence available would suggest that the
Company would have significant defenses to liability and damages.
In 2009, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi-
plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated
defendant companies which allegedly manufactured drilling-related
products containing asbestos.

The Company was not a defendant in either of these cases.  One of
the cases resulted in a substantial jury verdict in favor of the
plaintiff, and this verdict was subsequently vacated by the trial
judge on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of
proof.

While the court's decision is consistent with the Company's
general evaluation of the strength of these cases, it has not been
reviewed on appeal.  The second case resulted in a verdict
completely in favor of the defendants.  There have been no other
trials involving any of the parties to the original 21 complaints.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  At
Sept. 30, 2010, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests
in or operated 139 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Face 1,049 Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd., as of Sept. 30, 2010, was a
defendant in about 1,049 lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

A Company subsidiary, as of June 30, 2010, was a defendant in
about 1,062 asbestos-related lawsuits.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 13, 2010)

One of the Company's subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction
and refurbishment of major industrial complexes.  The operating
assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued
in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the
insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from
settlements with insurers, assigned rights from insurers and
"coverage-in-place" settlement agreements with insurers, and funds
received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous
other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company
estimates that there are about 2,505 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.
The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this
subsidiary in 1990.

Through Sept. 30, 2010, the amounts expended to resolve claims,
including both attorneys' fees and expenses and settlement costs,
have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the
primary insurance have been satisfied.

The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional
lawsuits, and the Company cannot predict the number of additional
cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can it predict the
potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the
pending cases.  However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1
billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  At
Sept. 30, 2010, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests
in or operated 139 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 63,472 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 63,472 unresolved asbestos claims
at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 75,357 unresolved asbestos claims
at Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 66,099 unresolved asbestos claims at June 30,
2010, compared with 74,957 unresolved claims at June 30, 2009.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades.  These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos
suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 5,525 claims filed and
17,083 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Claimants
with claims against both the Company and Amchem were at 19,844 and
individual claimants were at 43,628.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 6,379 claims filed and
6,728 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Claimants
with claims against both the Company and Amchem were at 24,328 and
individual claimants were at 51,029.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and
polypropylene.  The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $58MM Sept. 30 Defense Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded asbestos-related defense costs
of US$58 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$40 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009.

The Company recorded US$36 million defense costs for asbestos-
related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared
with US$20 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

The Company recorded asbestos-related resolution costs of US$40
million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$77 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred.  The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was
US$22 million in the third quarter of 2010 (US$20 million in the
third quarter of 2009) and US$58 million in the first nine months
of 2010 (US$40 million in the first nine months of 2009), and was
reflected in "Cost of sales."

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and
polypropylene.  The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Pursues Insurance Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation is still pursuing an asbestos-related
comprehensive insurance coverage action in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (Insurance
Litigation).

The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place with the Company regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an
orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and
to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Since the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements
with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation,
including settlements reached with two significant carriers in the
fourth quarter of 2009.  The Insurance Litigation is ongoing.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and
polypropylene.  The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $84MM Receivable at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$84 million at Sept. 30,
2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

At Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

The receivables for asbestos-related costs were US$326 million as
of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$532 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and
polypropylene.  The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is subject to actions that relate to
product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent
and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers,
distributors and dealers, competitors and employees.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation
manufactures air-cooled gas engines. Its engine customers are lawn
and garden OEMs Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products, MTD, and
Deere, and, to a lesser degree, generator, pressure washer, and
pump makers. The Company also produces replacement engines and
parts for aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Chem. Faces Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. (f/k/a Hexion Specialty
Chemicals, Inc.) is involved in product liability, commercial and
employment litigation, personal injury, property damage and other
legal proceedings, including actions that allege harm caused by
products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing
silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Momentive Specialty Chemicals
Inc. serves global industrial markets through a broad range of
thermoset technologies, specialty products and technical support
for customers in a diverse range of applications and industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HECO Posts $35MM Sept. 30 Retirement Obligation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30,
2010, subsidiary Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.'s asset
retirement obligations were US$35 million related to Honolulu
power plant Units Nos. 5 and 7 and US$12 million related to Waiau
power plant Units 1 and 2.

In July 2009, HECO hired an industrial hygienist to conduct an
inspection of HECO's Honolulu power plant, which inspection
indicated that retired Generating Units Nos. 5 and 7 at the plant
were now deteriorating.  The industrial hygienist recommended
removing asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.

Based on prior assessments, the timing of the removal of asbestos
and lead-based paint had not been estimable.  Based on the
inspection, however, HECO now intends to remove Units Nos. 5
and 7, including abating the asbestos and lead-based paint, over
the period 2010 to 2013.  Accordingly, HECO recorded an asset
retirement obligation in September 2009.

In August 2010, HECO recorded a similar asset retirement
obligation related to removing retired Generating Units Nos. 1
and 2 at HECO's Waiau power plant, including abating the asbestos
and lead-based paint, over the period 2011 to 2013.

Headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Electric Industries,
Inc. is the holding company for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)
and some non-utility businesses.  HECO serves more than 440,400
customers as the sole public electricity provider on the islands
of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to be involved in various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in New Orleans, Tidewater Inc. provides offshore
service vessels and equipment to the global offshore energy
industry through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine
service vessels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contract Flooring Fined $10,800 for Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
US$10,800 penalty to Contract Flooring & Interiors Inc., of
Portland, for conducting an asbestos removal project in Corvallis
without the required license, according to an Oregon DEQ press
release dated Nov. 4, 2010.

The unlicensed asbestos abatement project took place between
July 30, 2010 and Aug. 2, 2010 when workers mishandled asbestos-
containing vinyl floor tiles when removing carpet in a building on
the Hewlett-Packard campus at 1000 NE Circle Boulevard.

While removing the carpet, workers disturbed about 456 square feet
of the underlying asbestos-containing vinyl floor tile.  The
broken tiles likely released harmful asbestos fibers into the air.
Neither Contract Flooring & Interiors nor its employees are
licensed to perform asbestos abatement projects in Oregon.

DEQ issued the penalty because by law asbestos abatement projects
in Oregon must be conducted by licensed asbestos-abatement
professionals.

DEQ also noted that Contract Flooring & Interiors failed to
properly package and label the removed tile waste and cited the
company for accumulating asbestos-containing waste material.  It
did not issue a penalty for this violation.

Contract Flooring & Interiors Inc., which is headquartered at 801
SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, has until Nov. 15, 2010 to
appeal the penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hadley Man Penalized for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
levied a US$28,797.50 fine against L. Philip Lizotte, Jr. of South
Hadley, Mass., for violating state asbestos regulations, according
to a MassDEP press release dated Nov. 4, 2010.

The violations were discovered during a MassDEP investigation into
alleged illegal asbestos thermal insulation removal activities at
a two-family rental property located in Holyoke.

In January 2010, MassDEP conducted a site investigation and
determined that Mr. Lizotte had removed asbestos thermal
insulation from the basement of the property and placed the
asbestos into trash bags.  Mr. Lizotte then placed the trash bags
into trash cans and loaded them into his truck.

During these activities, Mr. Lizotte did not employ the proper
asbestos-handling, notification and disposal procedures.  Remnant
asbestos insulation remained in the basement and on the ground
outside of the building.

Under the terms of a consent order issued by the MassDEP, Mr.
Lizotte has agreed to pay a penalty of US$16,000.  The balance of
the US$28,797.50 penalty has been suspended provided that Mr.
Lizotte remains in compliance with the state's asbestos
regulations for a period of one year.

Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, said, "Improper removal and handling of asbestos-
containing materials places tenants, as well as the general public
at risk.  When properly followed, the asbestos regulations provide
for the protection of public health and the environment."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edwards Case v. 81 Firms Filed Oct. 15 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Edwards, on behalf of his father Forrest E. Edwards, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against 81 defendant corporations in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va. on Oct. 15, 2010, The West
Virginia Record reports.

Forrest E. Edwards worked for about 30 years at Union Carbide
Corporation as a laborer and millwright, according to the
complaint.

Dwight Edwards claims his father was directly and indirectly
exposed to various insulating and building materials that
contained asbestos and asbestos fibers.  Forrest E. Edwards was
diagnosed with mesothelioma and died on Oct. 19, 2008, according
to the suit.

Dwight Edwards seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  He is
being represented by William K. Schwartz, Esq.

Case No. 10-C-1835 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Lewis Penalized GBP20T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retailer John Lewis was penalized for GBP20,000 after failing to
do proper checks for asbestos while carrying out refurbishment
work in Edinburgh, Scotland, BBC News reports.

Morris and Spottiswood, which was contracted to carry out the
renovation, was also fined GBP20,000.  They both admitted to three
health and safety offenses.  Neither of the firms carried out the
necessary checks for asbestos before they allowed the work to
begin in 2008.

At Edinburgh Sherriff court, Sheriff Elizabeth Jarvie said she had
reduced both fines from GBP30,000 to reflect the guilty pleas.

Defense lawyer Robert Fife for John Lewis said the department
store, which had pre-tax profits of GBP164 million in the year
leading up to January 2010, apologized for the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brumbaugh, Knapp Actions filed in St. Clair Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos lawsuits of Jeraldeen Brumbaugh and Helen Knapp were
filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., on Oct. 26, 2010,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Brumbaugh filed her lawsuit against 40 defendant companies on
behalf of her recently deceased husband, Eddy Brumbaugh, while
Mrs. Knapp of Washington filed her suit against defendant
companies on behalf of her deceased husband, Carl Knapp.

In Mrs. Brumbaugh's suit, she claims that Mr. Brumbaugh's exposure
to asbestos began when he was a member of U.S. Navy from 1952
until 1955.  He continued to be exposed to asbestos throughout his
subsequent careers as a laborer at Premier Refinery from 1959
until 1960 and as a mudder and taper at various construction
sites.

In Mrs. Knapp's complaint, she claims that Mr. Knapp's exposure to
asbestos began when he was a laborer for Western Pine Saw Mill
from 1955 until 1959 and from 1961 until 1967.  He continued to be
exposed to asbestos fibers when he joined the U.S. Army from 1959
until 1961 and from 1962 until 1964 and when he worked as a cook,
drywaller and laborer for Highland House Restaurant from 1968
until 1979 and as a residential construction worker from 1963
until 1978.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the plaintiffs.  W.
Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., W. Casey Harris, Esq.,
and M. Clay Fostel, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will
serve of counsel for Mrs. Knapp.

Mr. Brumbaugh passed away on May 29, 2010.  Mr. Knapp died on
July 1, 2010 because of his condition, Mrs. Knapp claims.

In her 10-count complaint, Mrs. Brumbaugh seeks a judgment of more
than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000 and economic
damages of more than US$200,000.

In her six-count complaint, Mrs. Knapp seeks a judgment of more
than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and
economic damages of more than US$50,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valentino Case v. 26 Firms Ongoing in Meigs Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos case filed by Charles Valentino against 26 defendant
corporations is ongoing in Meigs County Common Pleas Court, Ohio,
Justice News Flash reports.

The wrongful death lawsuit claims exposure to asbestos products in
the late 1960s and early 1970s caused Mr. Valentino's wife,
Margaret Valentino, to develop mesothelioma.

Mr. Valentino, of Dublin, Ohio, brought on the wrongful death
litigation after Mrs. Valentino's case of mesothelioma proved
fatal in August 2009, two months after she was diagnosed with the
rare disease.

The lawsuit claims Mrs. Valentino "was exposed to asbestos,
products containing asbestos or machinery using asbestos products"
while employed as a nurse at three different hospitals in the
Columbus region.  The hospitals included St. Anthony's Hospital,
Mount Carmel Health and St. Ann's Hospital.

Allied Corporation, which is a successor of Cleveland-based Bendix
Corp., was named as the primary defendant in the pending wrongful
death case.  About 25 other companies were also sued.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDS Waste to Pay GBP3,479 for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bournemouth Magistrates' Court ordered Philip Pidgley,
director of FDS Waste Services Ltd, to pay GBP3,479 in fines and
costs for violating asbestos-related regulations, the Daily Echo
reports.

Mr. Pidgley, of Poole, Dorset, England, admitted breaking the
terms of his permit after one-and-a-half tons of asbestos was
discovered at his premises.

The case brought by the Environment Agency, followed a routine
inspection of FDS Waste Services' transfer station site, at
Clapcotts Yard, Mannings Heath Road, Poole, last September 2010.

Environment Agency officers found the cement-bonded asbestos in a
skip at the bottom of the yard, which was covered by eight other
skips.

Officers said Mr. Pidgley was unable to say where the hazardous
waste had come from, or explain why there was no paperwork
connected to the load.  FDS Waste Services normally deals with
non-hazardous waste like wood, plastics, builders' rubble and
other inert materials at its Clapcotts Yard premises.

The Company is permitted to accept asbestos as long as it is
immediately segregated and the Environment Agency informed, which
did not happen in this case.

However, Mr. Pidgley told officers the skip had arrived earlier on
the day of their inspection.

Appearing at the court hearing on Oct. 25, 2010, Mr. Pidgley was
fined GBP2,500 and ordered to pay GBP979 costs.  The Company was
given a 12-month conditional discharge and also ordered to pay
GBP979 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shockley Case v. 57 Companies Filed on Oct. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry and Dora Shockley, on Oct. 26, 2010, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 57 defendant corporations in St. Clair
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit claims that Mr. Shockley's exposure to asbestos began at
age 11 when he worked as a milk truck driver.

In their complaint, the Shockleys allege the defendant companies
caused Mr. Shockley to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

According to the complaint, Mr. Shockley worked as a milk truck
driver, a press operator, at Daniels Construction, at a tobacco
plant, at American Enka, at Oakridge National Lab, at Kingston
Power Plant, at Tennessee Eastman Corp., at Holston Defense Corp.,
at Atomin Bomb Plant, at E.I. DuPont, at Bull Run Steam Plant and
at his own fabricating shop.

In their 10-count complaint, the Shockleys seek judgment of more
than US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and
economic damages of more than US$200,000, plus costs and other
relief the court deems just.  They also seek punitive damages in
an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to deter similar
conduct in the future.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Shockleys in Case
No. 10-L-560.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Opposing Move Filed by Asbestos Trusts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of EnPro Industries
Inc., is opposing a motion made by asbestos trusts created in four
other bankruptcy reorganizations, Bloomberg reports.

George R. Hodges, a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in Charlotte, N.C., must
decide whether to cede control of part of the reorganization of
Garlock to a bankruptcy judge in Delaware.

If granted, the motion in substance would permit the Delaware
bankruptcy court to decide whether and to what extent Garlock can
require the trusts to produce documents and information about
asbestos claims.

Garlock previously filed a motion to be argued Nov. 18, 2010 to
authorize taking discovery from the trusts created under the
Chapter 11 plans for other companies.  Garlock says it needs the
information to craft its own reorganization.

In their Nov. 2, 2010 motion, the trusts say that Garlock and
other companies currently reorganizing asbestos debt "launched a
massive and intrusive discovery effort" against the trusts as
"part of an improper and concerted effort to use the trusts to
obtain discovery that no defendant could obtain in the tort
system."

The trusts say Garlock is part of a "coordinated, nationwide
attempt to seek inappropriate discovery from the trusts."  The
trusts want Judge Hodges to modify the so-called automatic stay so
they can sue Garlock in Delaware.  In the Delaware action, the
trusts will seek a ruling that the discovery sought by Garlock and
other companies in Chapter 11 is improper.

Garlock argues that the trusts are trying to pre-empt a ruling by
Judge Hodges at the Nov. 18, 2010 hearing on the question of
whether discovery is proper.

Garlock, a gasket maker based in Palmyra, N.Y., filed under
Chapter 11 in June 2010 to deal with the last 100,000 asbestos
claims.  Non-bankrupt affiliates are defendants on 30,000 claims.

The case is styled In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
10- 31607, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District North Carolina
(Charlotte).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Joiner's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Ernest Gittins, a joiner from
Horwich, Bolton, England, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, The Bolton News reports.

Mr. Gittins, who died at the age of 70, had worked as a joiner for
44 years after leaving school aged 16.  His wife, Irene Gittens,
learned that he had been exposed to asbestos when she spoke to
former work colleagues, who attended his funeral.

Mrs. Gittins told Bolton Coroners Court, "Other people told me
that he used to cut asbestos sheets with an electric saw.  He did
not wear any protective clothing, as there was nothing then, they
said."

Mr. Gittins became unwell in January 2010, and doctors thought he
had pulled a muscle in his shoulder.

Assistant deputy coroner Peter Watson recorded a verdict of death
caused by industrial disease. He said, "Clearly he was a very hard
working man for many years, working in conditions that would
perhaps not be acceptable in this day and age."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Awarded $150T to Reduce Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded US$150,000 to
Louisiana to help reduce asbestos exposure in schools and state
buildings, according to an EPA press release dated Nov. 4, 2010.

The project will encompass compliance monitoring, compliance
assistance and public outreach.  The project is covered under the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

The program provides protection through on-site surveillance where
asbestos is found.  AHERA requires local education agencies to
inspect schools for asbestos-containing building material and
prepare management plans to reduce the hazard.  The Act
establishes a program for the training and accreditation of
individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.

Although asbestos is hazardous, human risk of asbestos disease
depends upon exposure.  Removal is often not the best course of
action to reduce asbestos exposure.  Improper removal may create a
dangerous situation where none previously existed.

EPA only requires removal in order to prevent significant public
exposure to asbestos, such as during building renovation or
demolition.  EPA recommends in-place management whenever asbestos
is discovered.

Instead of removal, implementation of a management plan will
usually control fiber release when materials are not significantly
damaged and are not likely to be disturbed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Marshall Co. Bldg. Estimated at $30T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos removal at an old building in Marshall County, Iowa,
was once used to as a mental health sanatorium but has stood
vacant for decades, will take place over the winter and the County
had estimated US$30,000 for the project, the Times-Republican
reports.

The Marshall County Board of Supervisors, on Nov. 8, 2010,
accepted a bid that will start the demolition process for the
building, which sits south of the current jail.  The bids were
only for the removal of asbestos material.

Supervisor Ron Goecke said, "We cannot demolish -- take that
building down and get rid of the rubble -- until that asbestos is
removed."  The supervisors received three bids for the asbestos
removal, ranging from US$17,960 to nearly US$43,000.

All the bids included removal and disposal, but Supervisor Pat
Brooks also said there was a problem with the highest bidder, who
said the disposal would take place in the Marshall County
landfill.  That facility does not accept asbestos.  However,
Brooks said that all three were capable of doing the job because
they are licensed in the state of Iowa.

The low bidder, Advanced Environmental Testing and Abatement, is
based in Waterloo.  The total cost of the demolition is expected
to be about US$150,000.

That land is expected to be sold during a public auction taking
place Nov. 23, 2010.  Sealed bids can be submitted by 4:30 p.m.
Nov. 22, 2010.  However, a sealed bid is not necessary for those
wanting to bid in person.

The acreage for sale includes 74 tillable acres and 44 acres of
pasture, for a total of 118 acres.

The winning bidder must put 10 percent down on the day of the
auction, with the rest due at closing, which must take place on or
before Jan. 15, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups to Fight Aussie Govt. Over Sucrogen Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos groups say they will fight the Australian Government
regarding the latter's decision to approve the sale of CSR's sugar
business, Sucrogen, ABC News reports.

On Nov. 8, 2010, Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan gave the green light
for Sucrogen's sale to Singapore-listed agribusiness Wilmar.

Mr. Swan says current and future asbestos injury claimants from
Sucrogen's owners, CSR, which used to manufacture products with
asbestos, will be protected.  He says CSR has already publicly
stated that it will meet its asbestos liabilities.

However, the Asbestos Diseases Foundation's Barry Robson says
there has been no clear commitment from the company or the
Government.  He said, "We're prepared to start demonstrating
against the Government and the Treasurer to get our point across
that this sale cannot go ahead unless there is an absolute
watertight guarantee that x amount of dollars from this sale is
put into a bank account on behalf of victims."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Tyneside Boss Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The boss of a refurbishment company has been fined for failing to
provide adequate information, instruction and training to workers
in the proper procedures when dealing with asbestos, according to
a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Nov. 5, 2010.

Neil Brown, 45, trading as High View Services, of High View,
Wallsend, North Tyneside, England, was fined GBP360 by North
Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Nov. 5, 2010 after pleading guilty
to breaching Regulation 10(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006.  He was also ordered to pay GBP360 costs.

The court heard how the breach came to light on Jan. 6, 2009
during the investigation of an asbestos-related incident at a
North Tyneside Council house in Killingworth, the home of Amanda
Cleminson.  The incident occurred during a heating upgrade of the
property, which involved Mr. Brown's company.

The HSE investigation found that while work conducted by Mr.
Brown's employees could readily bring them into contact with
asbestos, they had not been given any asbestos awareness training
by Mr. Brown, despite a legal requirement to do so.

After the case, HSE Inspector Graham Watson said, "Any employer
who conducts work which may result in their employees coming into
contact with asbestos must make sure they receive adequate
information, instruction and training to help control not just the
risks to themselves but others who may also be exposed.

"You are most likely to find asbestos in buildings built or
refurbished before 2000.  Anyone conducting refurbishment work in
such buildings, where they are likely to disturb the fabric of the
building, must therefore make sure that their employees are
properly trained. This includes not only making sure there are
arrangements for training new employees but also providing regular
refresher training."

Exposure to asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related
deaths, with around 4,000 people a year dying from asbestos-
related diseases.  Workers most at risk are those who carry out
building maintenance and refurbishment work such as electricians,
plasterers, plumbers and carpenters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries have been
subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components
sold by the Company's subsidiaries.  Most of these claims name
numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products
allegedly containing asbestos.

Headquartered in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.
supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global
automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related
aftermarkets.  The Company conducts substantially all of its
operations through subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Ladish Co.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc. continues to be named a defendant in a number of
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Nov. 4, 2010, the Company has nine individual claims pending
in Mississippi, one claim pending in Wisconsin and two individual
claims pending in Illinois.

As of July 29, 2010, the Company had 11 individual claims pending
in Mississippi and four individual claims pending in Illinois.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos.  The
Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties.

Given that the consortium of insurers are handling the defense of
the Company, combined with the lack of actual exposure or prior
negative judgments, the Company has not made any provision in its
financial statements for the asbestos litigation.

Headquartered in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. designs, produces
and markets forged and cast metal components for load-bearing and
fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 56,960 at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending about 56,960 asbestos claims as of
Sept. 30, 2010, as compared with about 62,360 as of Dec. 31, 2009
and 61,820 as of Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company faced about 58,920 pending asbestos claims as of
June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.

The Company is typically named as one of a large number of
defendants in both state and federal cases.  In the majority of
asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.

During the third quarter of 2010, the Company received about 2,610
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 4,570
claims.

The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
about US$17.8 million for 2009 and US$15 million for 2008.

Headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation is comprised of the
following segments: Entertainment (CBS Television, comprised of
the CBS Television Network, CBS Television Studios, CBS Studios
International and CBS Television Distribution; CBS Films and CBS
Interactive), Cable Networks (Showtime Networks, Smithsonian
Networks and CBS College Sports Network), Publishing (Simon &
Schuster), Local Broadcasting (CBS Television Stations and CBS
Radio) and Outdoor (CBS Outdoor).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $2.34MM Asbestos, Bankruptcy Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls
subsidiary recorded asbestos and bankruptcy charges of
US$2,343,000 during the three months ended Oct. 3, 2010, compared
with US$1,977,000 during the three months ended Sept. 27, 2009.

Leslie recorded asbestos and bankruptcy charges of US$30,603,000
during the nine months ended Oct. 3, 2010, compared with
US$13,682,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 27, 2010.

Current Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy related liabilities were
US$80,064,000 as of Oct. 3, 2010 and US$12,476,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009.  Long-term Leslie asbestos liability was US$47,785,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, makes 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: Colfax Posts $2.3MM Litigation Expense at Oct. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$2,339,000 during the three months ended Oct. 1, 2010, compared
with US$1,845,000 during the three months ended Oct. 2, 2009,
according to a Company press release dated Nov. 4, 2010.

The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$4,543,000 during the three months ended July 2, 2010, compared
with US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2009.
(Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010)

The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$10,763,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 1, 2010, compared
with US$8,838,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 2, 2009.

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$2,202,000 during the
three months ended Oct. 1, 2010.  Asbestos liability and defense
income was US$4,303,000 during the three months ended Oct. 2,
2009.

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$4,179,000 during the
nine months ended Oct. 1, 2010.  Asbestos liability and defense
income was US$1,176,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 2, 2009.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation produces
critical fluid-handling products and technologies.  Through its
global operating subsidiaries, the Company manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power
generation, commercial marine, defense and general industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $138.72MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$138,729,330 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$147,093,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$138,001,259 as
of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The Company's current liability was US$25 million as of Sept. 30,
2010, compared with US$30 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$87,862,580 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$95,430,060 as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$18
million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$20 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates
in two business segments: Forged and Cast Rolls and Air and Liquid
Processing.  The Forged and Cast Rolls segment produces and sells
forged-hardened steel rolls and cast iron and steel rolls to
manufacturers of steel and aluminum throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,262 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,262 open asbestos-related
claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
959 settled or dismissed claims.  The gross settlement and defense
costs were US$13,044 during the period.

The Company was party to 8,155 open asbestos-related claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 27, 2010)

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries
(Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution
and another former division of the Company.  Those subsidiaries,
and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of
defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and
federal courts.

In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability
against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury.
The trial resulted in a defense verdict.  Plaintiffs appealed that
verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the
jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).  Under the Coverage
Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility,
subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense
percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for a
substantial majority of the pending claims for Asbestos Liability.

The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the
Company, about 420 as of Sept. 30, 2010, are not included within
the Coverage Arrangement.  The one claim filed against the former
division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company.  The Coverage Arrangement does not
provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable
policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the policies,
and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for
any covered claim arising out of a Product.

In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products
will erode the coverage under the policies available to the
Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability
alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other
historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by
the applicable policies.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates
in two business segments: Forged and Cast Rolls and Air and Liquid
Processing.  The Forged and Cast Rolls segment produces and sells
forged-hardened steel rolls and cast iron and steel rolls to
manufacturers of steel and aluminum throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Party to Howden Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howden Buffalo, Inc.'s asbestos-related insurance lawsuit against
its former parent, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, is ongoing in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Company, two
insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that
are not relevant to the Company, and two other insurance companies
that issued excess insurance policies covering certain
subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that are not
yet part of the Coverage Arrangement.

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the court
as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the Company
and the insurance carriers under the Excess Policies.

One of the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-claims
against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective
rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that
carrier.  The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for the
carrier's failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates
in two business segments: Forged and Cast Rolls and Air and Liquid
Processing.  The Forged and Cast Rolls segment produces and sells
forged-hardened steel rolls and cast iron and steel rolls to
manufacturers of steel and aluminum throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to a number of lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court
and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from the Company's product categories.  Most of these
claims have been dismissed and the Company's current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.

A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The balance of the claims is related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control
products.

A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against the Company.

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

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. manufactures
automotive emission control and ride control products and systems.
The Company serves both original equipment (OE) vehicle designers
and manufacturers and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, globally through leading brands, including Monroe,
Rancho, Clevite Elastomers and Fric Rottm ride control products
and Walker, Fonostm, and Gillettm emission control products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Harbinger in Miss., La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. is involved in multiple complaints in
Mississippi and Louisiana state courts and in a federal multi-
district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on
offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels formerly owned or
operated by the Company's offshore drilling and bulk-shipping
affiliates.

The Company has aggregate reserves for its legal and environmental
matters of about US$300,000 at both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2009.

Headquartered in New York, Harbinger Group Inc. is a holding
company that is owned by Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I,
Ltd., Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd. and Harbinger Capital
Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P.  The Company's principal
focus is to identify and evaluate business combinations or
acquisitions of businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Posts $2.7MM Reserves at Oct. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation, as of Oct. 3, 2010, has recorded an
asbestos-related bodily injury liability reserve of US$2.7 million
and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$1.9 million,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 10, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally
asbestos, at closed former facilities.

In addition to the Company, the cases generally include other ship
builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise
from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos or other toxic substances.

The Company is currently defending eight "malignant" claims and
about 172 "non-malignant" claims.  The Company also includes in
its reserves acknowledgement of 354 "inactive" claims that could
become active upon the presentation of additional evidence of
disease and/or exposure by those claimants and/or renewed
prosecution of their claims.

Headquartered in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private
(or non-Governmental) shipyard operator.  Most of its business is
repair and maintenance work on commercial and federal government
vessels engaged in various maritime activities in the Pacific
Northwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation, or its subsidiaries, has been named in
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.  The Company said it believes that the minimal use of
asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it
unlikely that the Company will face material liability in any
asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Fined Over Disposal Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The operators of a North Devon scrap yard and skip hire company
have been found guilty of illegally burning and burying waste
including asbestos at a site near Bideford, England, according to
an Environment Agency press release dated Oct. 28, 2010.

The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

After a five day trial at Exeter Crown Court, Petra Bond and
Julian Goddard of Auto Disposals and Bideford Skip Hire were
convicted of a total of seven offences under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 and Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

A jury heard how in 2006 there were a series of fires the site
that damaged a large asbestos-clad shed and pile of mixed waste.
Ms. Bond, who was in control of the site at the time, instructed
an employee to remove the asbestos from the building.  He placed
it in a number of skips, one of which was later legitimately
removed by a waste disposal company.

Following the last fire, Ms. Bond is alleged to have told the same
employee to get rid of the fire-damaged wastes as quickly as
possible to "cut costs."  She instructed him to take it to an
adjoining property, Goodleigh Cottage, excavate a hole and bury it
in an area just behind a wall.

A second consignment of asbestos, stored on several pallets, was
buried in a corner of the waste transfer station to allow a car
park to be constructed.  Once again, this was done on the
instruction of Ms. Bond.  It is estimated the damaged shed
contained around 15 tons of bonded asbestos of which only 1.8 tons
could be accounted for by Ms. Bond.

Witnesses, including three former employees, told the court how
later in 2007 Bideford Skip Hire supplied skips to a business
premises in Torrington where sand was used to mop up a diesel
spillage.  The skips were later stored in a car park at Goodleigh
Cottage where they started leaking diesel.

Ms. Bond told workers at the site to dig a hole and bury the
diesel contaminated waste.  When an employee asked why she would
not dispose of it legitimately, Bond said it was "too expensive."
A couple of skips of mixed waste were also buried at the same
time.

Also in 2007, Ms. Bond instructed site staff to move and bury a
large pile of mixed waste within the waste transfer site.  In
early 2008 site operations were taken over by Purgamentum Waste
Management Ltd with both Petra Bond and Julian Goddard as
directors of the company.

In May 2008, an Agency officer visited the site and found an
incinerator called an Air Curtain Burner being used.  Mr. Goddard
had been previously advised by an environment protection officer
at Torridge District Council that it was an offence to operate
this type of burner without a permit.

The Agency officer instructed site workers to stop burning
material.  He saw treated, painted and mixed wood was being burnt
along with general mixed waste.

The court heard how the defendants had denied the Environment
Agency access to the site on a number of occasions during the
investigation and had been unhelpful and obstructive.  Eventually
the Agency used its powers under the Section 108 of the
Environment Act to enter the site.

A magistrate's warrant was issued and on May 29, 2008 a team of
Agency officers gained access and carried out a full site
investigation.  Further excavations under a court warrant were
undertaken in March 2009.

Large quantities of waste including asbestos and mixed waste were
found exactly where the former employees said it would be found.
In one area, a liquid described as a "malodorous leachate" was
discovered as waste was being excavated.

A witness told the court he estimated between 2,000 -- 3,000 tons
of waste had been illegally buried at the site and in the grounds
of a neighboring property.

Richard Cloke for the Environment Agency said, "The operators of
this site deliberately chose to flout the law and dispose of
hazardous waste in a highly illegal and irresponsible fashion.
They were motivated by money and a desire to increase profits and
save on costs.  In behaving in this reckless manner they ignored
the concerns of their employees and put human health and the
environment at risk."

The case was adjourned for sentencing until early December 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simon's Charged for Disposal Breach in Parklea
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaza West of the Dyldam Group sued contractor Simon's Earthworks
for using truckloads of asbestos-contaminated soil as landfill at
a housing development in Parklea, New South Wales, 1233 ABC
Newcastle reports.

Plaza West is suing Simon's Earthworks and one of its directors in
a civil case in the New South Wales Supreme Court.  Plaza West
alleges the contractor falsified invoices, paid kickbacks to a
site supervisor and wrongly claimed payments for work on a
Parramatta site, now called Entrada, in 2007 and 2008.

Returning fire, the contractor's lawyer, Daniel Feller SC, says
Plaza West's evidence cannot be relied on.  They allege that in
2006, asbestos-contaminated soil was dug up at the Parramatta site
and taken to a Dyldam development site in Parklea.

The court has been shown records indicating that on the same day,
contaminated material were being loaded onto trucks and six
truckloads went to Parklea in western Sydney.

Plaza West's lawyer, Michael Rudge SC, objected to the claims on
the basis they were irrelevant to the case.  However, the judge
allowed the claims and that documentary evidence is not yet
publicly available.

But the project manager for the development, Fayad Lee Fayad, was
shown invoices he had signed for work done on site, including the
supervised removal of asbestos-contaminated material.

The Environment Department is investigating illegal dumping claims
against Dyldam.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korea Woman Files Appeal Regarding Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Times says that Yoko Okada who suffers from asbestosis
is appealing a decision made by the courts stating she could not
receive compensation from the factory where her parents worked
because she was never employed there, the Mesothelioma Resource
Center reports.

Ms. Okada is filing an asbestos lawsuit against the Japanese
government for "not informing people about the possible health
threat of the material and encouraging them to work in the mill."

Ms. Okada, a second-generation Korean raised in Japan, claims she
spent much of her life as a child at a factory that produced
asbestos.  People like Ms. Okada whose parents often migrated from
Korea to the island nation are called Zainichi.

Other Zainichis were present at the hearing, claiming they or
relatives of theirs suffered from an asbestos-related disease.
Many of the plaintiffs had already won their cases but the state
government appealed the decisions.

According to the Times, many other workers suffering from asbestos
may be living in pain, but are afraid to come forward because of
prejudices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trascher Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed a court's ruling in a case
involving asbestos styled Joseph C. Trascher, et al. v. Northrop
Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc., et al.

The Panel entered judgment in Case No. 2010-CC-1287 on Sept. 17,
2010.

Plaintiffs brought action against decedent's employer and others
for decedent's alleged asbestos exposure which occurred during his
employment at shipyard.  The District Court, Orleans Parish,
denied exception of insurer of seven executive officers of
employer on basis of improper venue.  The Court of Appeal denied
insurer's application for supervisory writs.  Insurer applied for
review which was granted.

This matter arose out of a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in
Orleans Parish against various defendants based on alleged
asbestos exposure to their decedent, which occurred during his
employment at Avondale Shipyards in Jefferson Parish. Commercial
Union Insurance Company, in its capacity as insurer of seven
executive officers of Avondale Industries who reside outside of
Orleans Parish, filed an exception of improper venue.

The district court denied Commercial Union's exception, and the
court of appeal denied Commercial Union's application for
supervisory writs.  This application followed.

The judgment of the district court is reversed.  The exception of
improper venue was granted.  The case was remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.

                             *********

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  * * *