CAR_Public/101126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 234

                             Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Continues to Defend Washington Securities Suit
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Commenced by J. Wolfe
AUSTRALIA: Pan Pharma Class Action Settled for $50 Million
AUSTRALIA: Tarcutta Residents Mull Class Action Over Flooding

COMTECH TELECOM: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed by Plaintiffs
COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Writ of Appeal Pending in La. Supreme Court
COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Maryland
COVENTRY HEALTH: Still Defends Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Sued for Requiring Employees to Work Off-The-Clock

DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Faces New Class Action Over Hip Implants
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Certification of Gas Use Suit Remains Pending
GE RETAIL: E*Trade Removes "Baker" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
GENERAL WAX: Recalls 33,000 Silver & Gold Metallic Taper Candles
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action for Scanning Gmail Accounts

H&R BLOCK: LakinChapman Settles Remaining Claims in Class Action
ILLINOIS: Judge Certifies Class in Healthcare Funding Suit
IMMERSION CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
J & H INT'L: Recalls 36,000 Kitchentrend Stainless Steel Carafe
JACKSONVILLE, FL: Suit Seeks to Oust Pension Trustees

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls More Children's Benadryl and Motrin
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Granted
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Pfizer Merger
MACSPORTS INC: Recalls 2,300 Folding Camp Rockers
MARINER ENERGY: Negotiating Settlement of Two Merger-Related Suits

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Role
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces 2 Class Suits Over Superior Well Merger
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Discovery in California Securities Suit Ongoing
NOVELL INC: Attachmate Bid Attracts Class Action Probes
OAKLAND, CA: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Class Action

PEABODY ENERGY: Petition of Mandamus Pending in Supreme Court
PIONEER FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Bread Price-Fixing
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations
RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Suit Remains Pending in California
REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser's Suit Pending

REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Statement of Claim
REDDY ICE: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in Ontario
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Change of Class Action Lawyers Approved
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Part of Class Action Verdict Up for Trial

ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 20,000 Bosch Hammer Drills
SHORELINE MGT: Sued for Violations of State Wage and Hour Laws
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
SYDNEY: Class Action Boundaries in Contamination Suit Narrowed
SYNGENTA CROP: Stephen Tillery Can Pursue Atrazine Class Action

UNITED STATES: Court Remands FCRA Class Action Suit for Review
WALMART: Supreme Court Tackles Discrimination Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Deceptive Loan Modification Practices
WILMINGTON TRUST: Accused in Delaware of Misleading Shareholders

                   Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Posts $79.87MM Net Liability at Oct. 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Has 1,340 Open Cases at Oct. 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Posts $1.7MM Remaining Leslie Insurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Spence, Hoke
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Still Facing Injury Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burik Case Ongoing v. Vector Group in Md. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kraska Case v. Vector Group Ongoing in Maryland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Love Action v. Vector Group Ongoing in Maryland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schoppert Action v. Vector Ongoing in Md. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Action Pending v. Vector in W.Va. Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Still Party to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $33MM Aearo Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $124MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Party to Continental Casualty Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Reserves $277,000 for Gradall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Posts $8.7MM Recoverables at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Has $3.133BB Gross Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Faces 4,965 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel, Units Still Party to Injury Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Continues to Be Subject to A&E Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Corp. Has 31,472 Cases at Oct. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Party to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. Arabian American Filed Sept. 14 in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Reserves $865MM for Carolinas at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Ohio Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Involved in Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has $113.8MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Posts $350MM Sept. 30 Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welshpool Co. Penalized for Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Opposition Pledges A$5.5MM for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Unions Move to Upgrade Hazard Warning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rolls-Royce Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchcombe Lorry Driver's Death Due to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tucker Lawsuit v. 37 Firms Filed Nov. 5 in Ill.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riggleman Action Filed v. CSX in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chenoweth Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henthorn's Action v. 95 Firms Filed on Oct. 22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edwards Case v. 81 Firms Filed Nov. 5 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Allen County Bldg. to Cost Up to $2MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taylor Case v. 80 Firms Filed Oct. 25 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Behringer Harvard Posts $8.9MM ARO at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Accrues $2.1MM Obligations at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Files Appeal on Quigley Action Oct. 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $86MM for Claims at Oct. 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 876 Claims in W.Va. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Remains Party to Sealed Air Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Has Up to $20MM Coverage for A&E Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp., Units Face 60 Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Posts $300,000 CAROs at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Still Party to Claims in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Continues to be Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 38 Exposure Cases at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire & Cable Faces Actions in 4 States
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Bucyrus Int'l.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Involved in Injury Actions



                             *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that commenced on October 2, 2006 alleged that 24 Hour
Fitness, the nation's largest privately owned fitness center
chain, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and engaged in unfair and
fraudulent business practices,  as well as other violations of
California's consumer protection statutes in charging monthly
membership dues by unauthorized electronic funds transfer after
members provided notice of cancellation of their memberships.
24 Hour Fitness asserted that the class members had authorized the
charges and denied any wrongdoing.  The Court made no
determination that 24 Hour Fitness had done anything wrong.

After 4 years of hard fought litigation, United States District
Court Judge A. Howard Matz approved a class action settlement
agreement that provided a $20 monetary reimbursement or a 3-month
all-access membership certificate, valued between $150-$200, to
just over 1.53 million class members nationwide.  In Friedman v.
24 Hour Fitness, plaintiffs alleged fees had been deducted from
their bank or credit card accounts after giving 24 Hour Fitness
notice that they were canceling their gym memberships.

Following protracted settlement negotiations, both sides entered
into a settlement agreement that provided valuable benefits to the
settlement class and puts a complete stop to the practice going
forward.  Melissa Harnett, co-lead counsel from Wasserman, Comden,
Casselman & Esensten, stated, "It speaks volumes of the
professionalism involved from all sides that we were able to
establish an agreement that reimburses approximately 80% of an
average class member's actual damages for the charges at issue."

Jeffrey Keller, co-lead counsel from Keller Grover, LLP, also
stated, "We are very proud of the results of this settlement
because it is bound to bring change to the whole health club
industry.  We secured not only the benefit for those people
subject to these charges in the past but also the commitment of
the largest privately owned fitness center chain in the country to
stop this practice forever.  This case is a big win for all gym
users and not just the former members of 24 Hour Fitness in the
class."

In approving the settlement, valued at over $295 million, which
includes the value of the 3-month all-access membership
certificates and the long-term value of stopping the practice
going forward, Judge Matz noted that class counsel were "stellar
in [their] representation of the class" in what amounted to a very
challenging case that involved "as much, if not more, time and
effort and concern and rulings than any class action I can
recall."

Regarding the settlement, 24 Hour Fitness states that: "24 Hour
Fitness values its members and we strive to offer the best fitness
experience in the industry.  We are responsive to our members'
concerns and we have settled this case so we can continue to focus
on our overall goal of helping people make fitness a way of life."

                      About Wasserman Comden

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP is a full service law
firm with three offices in Southern California, and affiliated
offices in China and Israel.  The firm represents a sophisticated
array of clients in myriad industries in matters related to real
estate, intellectual property, labor and employment and
international business.  With a top-ranked litigation department,
the firm handles all aspects of complex litigation in areas
related to public construction and natural condition liability
matters, business litigation, consumer class action litigation and
also represents property owners and businesses in regulatory
takings and complex government liability disputes.

                        About Keller Grover

Keller Grover, LLP is a consumer protection, antitrust and wage
and hour law firm based in Northern California with a winning
track record and a strong reputation for vigorously protecting the
rights of consumers and employees nationwide.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Continues to Defend Washington Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc., related in its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, that it has continues to defend
allegations asserted in a securities class action.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

On March 11, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the class
action.

On June 2, 2010, the Court issued an order denying the Defendants'
motion.

The current amended complaint, alleges that the Defendants
violated federal securities laws by making untrue statements of
material fact and omitting to state material facts, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Ambassadors Group Common
Stock.

The Company said it has reviewed the amended complaint and deny
the allegations contained in it.

The class action is currently in discovery.

The Company noted that it has tendered its defense and indemnity
under applicable insurance coverage and defense counsel in
Seattle, Washington has been retained to represent it.

The Company cannot estimate the possible loss with respect to the
class action, if any, at this time.  Actual cost to resolve the
class action will depend on many factors like the outcome of
mediation, pre-trial motions, trial and any appeals.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit and any
alleged claims for damages.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Commenced by J. Wolfe
------------------------------------------------------------
AspenBio Pharma, Inc., was sued by John Wolfe in a securities
class litigation in a California court, the Company revealed in
its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 1, 2010, AspenBio received a complaint, captioned John
Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No. CV10 7365.

The federal securities class action was filed in the United States
District Court in the Central District of California on behalf of
all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock
of AspenBio Pharma, Inc., during the period between February 22,
2007, and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The defendants purport to
include certain officers and directors of the Company during such
period.

The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants related to the Company's blood-
based appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.

The Company and the individual defendants are evaluating the
complaint, and  believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims under
the complaint.


AUSTRALIA: Pan Pharma Class Action Settled for $50 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Ellie Harvey, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports a
settlement, believed to be more than $50 million, has been reached
in the Pan Pharmaceuticals class action against the federal
government.

The settlement, announced Tuesday, brings to a close a string of
legal suits since 2003, and is belated vindication for the
company's founder, Jim Selim, who died earlier this year after a
stroke and battle with leukaemia.

Mr. Selim had been giving evidence in the Federal Court in the
months before his death.  Terms of settlement are confidential.

In 2003, Pan boasted "the largest product offering of its kind in
the world", with 4500 formulations of tablets, gels, liquids,
creams and powders on offer, when it became the subject of a huge
product recall.

In April that year the Therapeutic Goods Administration suspended
Pan's manufacturing license and recalled everything it had
manufactured in the past year.  Its investigation into Pan was
sparked by reports the company's Travacalm product was causing
hallucinations in some people.  The company collapsed within
months.

In 2008 Mr. Selim received a $50 million settlement from the
federal government.

About 165 of Pan's customers, creditors and sponsors joined a
class action, led by PharmaCare, seeking their own payments from
the government and the TGA, saying they were left $120 million out
of pocket by the action taken by authorities.  Three other
companies ran their own cases alongside it.

The litigation funder, IMF, said if the settlement was approved by
the court they would receive $24 million which would generate a
profit after overheads but before tax of $17 million.

Litigation funders generally receive about one-third of proceeds
of settlement, making the settlement in favor of the class action
more than $50 million.

"Any settlement is a compromise from all parties concerned," said
the executive director of IMF, John Walker.

"[In] this particular dispute, I think everybody involved ought to
be happy with the outcome."

Pan's associates had accused the authorities of negligence and
misfeasance of public office and some are claiming for a loss of
share value, which lawyers for the TGA said there was no legal
authority for.

Mr. Walker hoped an application for approval would be before the
court before year's end.


AUSTRALIA: Tarcutta Residents Mull Class Action Over Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Riverina NWS reports that the owners of at least seven
properties in Tarcutta are currently counting the costs of the
October flooding so they can begin a class action against the
Roads and Traffic Authority.

A property owner at Tarcutta said the victims of the flood on
October 15 are currently gathering together builder's quotes and
their individual assessments of damage.

Litigation specialists Slater and Gordon has asked for the
assessments for a class action that relates to new duplication
work on the Hume Highway.

The property owners blame the six-meter high bypass for inundating
their properties.

The property owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, said local
residents repeatedly warned the RTA of flooding risks if it
mounded soil on the flood plain.

The owner said damage has ranged from shifting foundations to
damaged equipment.


COMTECH TELECOM: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed by Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. on Tuesday disclosed that
plaintiffs Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System
and James Lawing, by and through Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
as their counsel, have filed a motion with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to voluntarily
dismiss, with prejudice, their July 2009 securities fraud lawsuit
filed against Comtech, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.  The plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss
the case after conducting their own investigation and apparently
concluding that there was no merit to maintaining the class action
lawsuit.

Mr. Kornberg stated, "Although we were disappointed that this
lawsuit was filed in the first place, we are pleased that the
plaintiffs have apparently agreed with our position that this case
was without merit."

Separately, the Company also announced that it has been dismissed,
without prejudice, as a defendant in a putative stockholder class
action complaint that was filed by a stockholder of CPI
International, Inc., against CPI, its directors and the Company in
connection with the Company's proposed merger with CPI which was
terminated in September 2010.  That lawsuit asserted claims
alleging, among other things, that each member of CPI's board of
directors breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms
of the proposed merger and by failing to provide stockholders with
allegedly material information related to the proposed merger, and
that we aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly
committed by the members of CPI's board of directors.  In
September 2010, Comtech announced the termination of the merger
agreement with CPI, that it received a gross termination fee of
$15.0 million from CPI, and Comtech and CPI exchanged mutual
general releases related to the terminated transaction.

Comtech Telecommunications Corp. designs, develops, produces and
markets innovative products, systems and services for advanced
communications solutions.  The Company believes many of its
solutions play a vital role in providing or enhancing
communication capabilities when terrestrial communications
infrastructure is unavailable, inefficient or too expensive.  The
Company conducts business through three complementary segments:
telecommunications transmission, mobile data communications and RF
microwave amplifiers.  The Company sells products to a diverse
customer base in the global commercial and government
communications markets.  The Company believes it is a market
leader in the market segments that it serves.


COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Writ of Appeal Pending in La. Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A writ of appeal filed by First Health Group Corp., a subsidiary
of Coventry Health Care Inc., in relation to a class action
lawsuit is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court, according to
Coventry Health Care's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state court
class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging that
FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "Act"),
which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider network
contract to give a one time notice 30 days before that payor uses
the discounted rate in the preferred provider network contract to
pay the provider for services rendered to a member insured under
that payor's health benefit plan. These provider plaintiffs allege
that the Act applies to medical bills for treatment rendered to
injured workers and that the Act requires point of service written
notice in the form of a benefit identification card. If a payor is
found to have violated the Act's notice provision, the court may
assess up to $2,000 in damages for each instance when the provider
was not given proper notice that a discounted rate would be used
to pay for the services rendered. In response to the state court
class action, FHGC and certain payors filed a suit in federal
court against the same four provider plaintiffs in the state court
class action seeking a declaratory judgment that FHGC's contracts
are valid and enforceable, that its contracts are not subject to
the Act since that Act does not apply to medical services rendered
to injured workers and that FHGC is exempt from the notice
requirements of the Act because it has contracted directly with
each provider in its network. The federal district court ruled in
favor of FHGC and declared that its contracts are not subject to
the Act, that FHGC was exempt from the Act's notice provision
because it contracted directly with the providers, and that FHGC's
contracts were valid and enforceable, i.e., the four provider
plaintiffs were required to accept the discounted rate in
accordance with the terms of their written contracts with FHGC.

Despite the federal court's decision, the provider plaintiffs
continued to pursue their state court class action against FHGC
and filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages of
$2,000 for each provider visit where the provider was not given a
benefit identification card at the time the service was performed.
In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed in
the state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federal
court which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the four
provider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claim
against FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under the Act.
Despite the issuance of this federal court injunction, the
provider plaintiffs and their counsel pursued their motion for
partial summary judgment in the state court action. Before the
state court held a hearing on the motion for partial summary
judgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis that the
four named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the federal
court from pursuing their claims against FHGC. The state court
denied the motion to decertify the class but did enter an order
permitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of the state court's
denial of the motion. Even though FHGC had filed its appeal and
there were no class representatives since all four named
plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against
FHGC, the state court held a hearing and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the
motion despite the fact that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction due
to the appeal filed by FHGC challenging the denial of its motion
to decertify the class; (2) there were no named class
representatives because all four named plaintiffs had been
enjoined from pursuing their claims against FHGC; (3) none of the
providers in the class ever submitted a claim for payment to FHGC
and therefore FHGC never made any discounted payments to any of
the providers in the class in the absence of notice; (4) FHGC has
contracted directly with every provider in the class and
therefore, under the Act's express language, FHGC was exempt from
giving notice under the Act; and (5) the claims of the provider
plaintiffs are time barred. The amount of the partial judgment was
for $262 million. Class counsel will likely claim prejudgment
interest and attorneys' fees in addition to the $262 million
judgment plus post judgment interest.  FHGC appealed both the
partial summary judgment order and the denial of class
decertification order to the state's intermediate appellate court.
Both appeals were denied by the intermediate appellate court.
FHGC has filed an application for a writ of appeal with the
Louisiana Supreme Court with respect to the class decertification
order and the partial summary judgment order. The decision to
grant or deny the application for a writ of appeal is at the
discretion of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Both applications are
still pending before the Louisiana Supreme Court.  FHGC also filed
a motion with the federal court to enforce the federal court's
prior judgments and for sanctions against the provider plaintiffs
for violating those judgments which barred and enjoined them from
pursuing their claims against FHGC in the state courts. That
motion also sought to enjoin the state courts from proceeding in
order to protect and effectuate the federal court's judgments.
FHGC's motion was denied by the federal court.

As a result of the Louisiana appellate court's decision on July 1,
2010 to affirm the state trial court's summary judgment order, the
Company recorded a $278 million pre-tax charge to earnings during
the second quarter of 2010.  This amount represents the $262
million judgment amount plus post judgment interest and is
included in "accounts payable and other accrued liabilities" in
the accompanying balance sheets.  The Company has accrued for
legal fees expected to be incurred related to this case as well as
post judgment interest subsequent to the second quarter charge,
which are included in "accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities" in the accompanying balance sheets.

In a related matter, FHGC has filed another lawsuit in Louisiana
federal district court against 85 Louisiana providers seeking a
declaratory judgment that its contracts are valid and enforceable,
that its contracts are not subject to the Act because its
contracts pertain to payment for services rendered to injured
workers, and FHGC is exempt from the notice provision of the Act
because it has contracted directly with the providers.  This
lawsuit is assigned to the same federal district court judge who
issued the decision and injunction in the lawsuit filed by FHGC
against the four provider plaintiffs in the state court action.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care Inc. continues to defend itself against an
amended complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Sept. 3, 2009, a shareholder, who owns less than 5,000 shares,
filed a putative securities class action against the company and
three of its current and former officers in the federal district
court of Maryland.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other
shareholders or investor groups filed motions with the court for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead
and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four shareholders
submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.

The court has approved the stipulation and ordered the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint by May 21,
2010.  The amended complaint has been filed.

The purported class period is Feb. 9, 2007 to Oct. 22, 2008.  The
amended complaint alleges that the company's public statements
contained false, misleading and incomplete information regarding
the company's profitability, particularly the profit margins for
its Medicare Advantage Private Fee-for-Service products.

The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the
lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company
believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
its financial position or results of operations.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Still Defends Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Oct. 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
ERISA class action lawsuit against the company and several of its
current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering and maintaining company stock in the Plan
after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly
failing to provide complete and accurate information about the
company's financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings
and public statements.

Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in
the same court and were consolidated on Dec. 9, 2009.

As ordered by the court, the plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
in the consolidated complaint. Although it cannot predict the
outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


CVS CAREMARK: Sued for Requiring Employees to Work Off-The-Clock
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Khnanisho, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CVS Caremark, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-49900 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 19, 2010), seeks to recover from
defendants unpaid wages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.  Mr. Khnanisho says the pharmacy
and retail products and services provider does not pay him and the
Class he represents for the work they perform when they drive from
one CVS store to another CVS store in the same workday to perform
security guard duties.

Mr. Khnanisho is employed as a loss prevention agent/security
guard for the defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400


DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Faces New Class Action Over Hip Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Smith, writing for The Mercury, reports dodgy hip
replacements described as one of the biggest medical stuff-ups in
Australian history are at the center of a new class action.

The artificial hip implants made by Depuy Orthropedics a
subsidiary of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson have a
failure rate of one in eight, requiring them to be replaced within
five years.

Berriedale pensioner Marlene Burles has joined the class action
against the manufacturer of two models of prosthetics hips which
were recalled in August.

Ms. Burles said she was prompted to join the class action after
reading about it in the Mercury.

"I had a hip replacement four years ago in December and it has
given me hell ever since," she said.

"I had problems with pain, aching, it moves and it was just a
disaster."

Ms. Burles said she is on a three-month waiting list for another
hip replacement but red tape could mean she will have to wait even
longer.

"The specialists are waiting on a final decision from the company
and Depuy's insurers, so when that will be goodness knows,"
Ms. Burles said.

"But I can't go much longer with all the pain and agony."

Brisbane law firm Shine Lawyers is helping Ms. Burles and others
from around the country as part of a group action being brought in
the US.

Shine solicitor Rebecca Jancauskas said about 100 Australians had
contacted the firm about the class action.

It is estimated 5000 Australians were fitted with the hips.

Ms. Jancauskas said it was a misconception that only older people
would be affected by the recall.

Australians who have contacted Shine Lawyers have ranged in age
from their 30s to their 80s, she said.

"It's a disaster, and we'll be holding Depuy accountable,"
Ms. Jancauskas said.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Certification of Gas Use Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification of a lawsuit related to natural
gas use asserted against Dorchester Minerals, L.P.'s operating
partnership, Dorchester Minerals Operating LP, remains pending,
the Company noted in its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural
Residents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma,
regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences.

Dorchester Minerals Operating LP, the operating partnership, now
owns and operates the properties formerly owned by Dorchester
Hugoton.  Those properties contribute a major portion of the net
profits overriding royalty interest or NPI amounts paid to the
Company.

On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial costs, dismissed with
prejudice all claims against the operating partnership regarding
such residential gas use.

On October 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed severed claims against
the operating partnership regarding royalty underpayments, which
the Texas County District Court subsequently dismissed with a
grant of time to replead.

On January 27, 2006, one of the original plaintiffs again sued the
operating partnership for underpayment of royalty, seeking class
action certification.

On October 1, 2007, the Texas County District Court granted the
operating partnership's motion for summary judgment finding no
royalty underpayments.

Subsequently, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 31, 2010, the appeal decision reversed and remanded to
the Texas County District Court to resolve material issues of
fact.

A hearing regarding the requested class action certification is
set for late May 2011.

No court hearing has been scheduled on the merits.  An adverse
decision could reduce amounts the Company receive from the NPIs.


GE RETAIL: E*Trade Removes "Baker" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Baker, individually and on behalf of others similarly
siutated v. GE Retail Sales Finance, Inc., dba GEMB Lending, Inc.;
E*Trade Financial Corporation dba E*Trade Financial; CCB Credit
Services, Inc., Case No. CGC-10-504533 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty.), was filed on October 12, 2010.  The Plaintiff
brought claims against the defendants for violations of the Unfair
Competition Law, the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act,
and other applicable laws.  Mr. Baker says the defendants failed
to provide him with the statutorily-mandated notice of his legal
rights and obligations following defendants' repossession of his
motor vehicle under a conditional sales contract, thus wrongfully
depriving him of his right to reinstate or redeem his conditional
sales contract after repossession.  Further, Mr. Baker relates
that defendants also collected, or sought to collect, a deficiency
from him for which he is not liable, sought and obtained
deficiency judgments, and falsely reported borrowers' deficiency
balances to credit reporting agencies as past due debts.

GEMB is engaged in the business of providing financing to
purchasers of automobiles, and in debt collection on those
accounts.  E*Trade is in the business of purchasing debt accounts
and collecting on the debt

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, on November 19,  2010, E*Trade, removed the
lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-05261 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Nancy Barron, Esq.
          Timothy C. Foote, Esqs.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632-1900

               - and -

          Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq.
          TRUEBLOOD LAW FIRM
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 443-4139

E*Trade is represented by:

          Kurt A. Kappes, Esq.
          Thomas A. Woods, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1201 K Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 95814-3938
          Telephone: (916) 442-1111
          E-mail: KappesK@gtlaw.com
                  WoodsTo@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan S. Nadel, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          153 Townsend St., 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 655-1260
          E-mail: NadelE@gtlaw.com


GENERAL WAX: Recalls 33,000 Silver & Gold Metallic Taper Candles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
General Wax & Candle Company, of North Hollywood, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 33,000 Silver and Gold
Metallic Taper Candles.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The metallic paint can ignite on the candles, posing a risk of
fire.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves involves 10 inch metallic silver and gold
taper candles.  The price "$1.99" and the UPC code 609032492687 or
609032492694 are printed on the candles' plastic wrapping.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11052.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Yankee Candle stores nationwide from October 2010 through
November 2010 for about $2.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled candles and
return them to any Yankee Candle store or contact General Wax and
Candle for a full refund.  For additional information, contact
General Wax and Candle at (800) 543-0642 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.generalwaxrefund.com/


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action for Scanning Gmail Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports a
Texarkana resident has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
that claims the company violated privacy laws by scanning Gmail
accounts in order to sell and place advertisements on account
holder's user screens.

Keith Dunbar, individually and as representative on behalf of
all similar situated persons, filed suit against Google Inc. on
Nov. 17 in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.

The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 by scanning the content of all
Gmail from any sender and using the information to sell and place
advertisements.

According to court documents, Google has admitted that it
intercepts and scans all incoming emails of Gmail account holders,
including those from non-consenting, non-Gmail account holders.

"As result of Google's actions in intercepting non-Gmail account
holders' emails, Google obtains a monetary benefit without consent
of the Class members and without compensation to them," the
lawsuit states.

Within its policies, Google states that there is an expectation of
privacy between an email sender and recipients and acknowledges
that privacy is compromised if personal information or private
email content is shared with anyone other than the sender and the
intended recipients.

According to the complaint, Google does not consider that it is
violating the privacy act because "it chooses not to consider
itself as one of the parties other than the sender and intended
recipient."

"Google scans the text of Gmail messages in order to filter spam
and detect viruses, just as all major webmail services do,"
according to part of Google's policies quoted in the lawsuit.

The policy continues by stating Google believes showing relevant
advertising offers more value and users will see text ads and
links to related pages that are related to their messages.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to stop
Google's violations and for an award of actual damages,
disgorgement of profits, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

The proposed class is represented by Sean F. Rommel and James C.
Wyly of Wyly Rommel in Texarkana, Chris Travis and Drake Mann of
Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman in Little Rock, Ark., and M. Chad
Trammel of The Trammell Law Firm in Texarkana, Ark.

U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.

Case No. 5:10-cv-00194


H&R BLOCK: LakinChapman Settles Remaining Claims in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
LakinChapman lawyers settled two individual claims that remained
after a giant class action against tax preparer H&R Block slipped
away.

U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan announced settlement on
Nov. 10, allowing 30 days to prepare final documents.

Lorie Marshall and Debra Ramirez, clients of the former Lakin Law
Firm, sued H&R Block companies in 2001, in Madison County.

They claimed H&R Block sold unnecessary "peace of mind" coverage
guaranteeing a defense against the Internal Revenue Service in
case of error.

Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn certified national plaintiff and
defendant classes, but later decertified the defendant class and
shrank the plaintiff class to 11 states.

H&R Block Tax Services, the only remaining defendant, removed the
case to federal court as a new action for purposes of the national
Class Action Fairness Act.

Judge Reagan remanded the case to Madison County, but Seventh
Circuit appeals judges in Chicago ordered him to preside over it.

Judge Reagan scrapped Judge Mendelsohn's order and denied class
certification this year.

Ms. Marshall and Ms. Ramirez declared they would proceed to trial
as individuals, and H&R Block moved for summary judgment.

Judge Reagan set trial, but it won't happen.

He canceled all settings and denied all pending motions as moot.


ILLINOIS: Judge Certifies Class in Healthcare Funding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Shapiro, writing for NPR, reports a U.S. District Court
judge in Illinois has certified a class action lawsuit on behalf
of eight people with severe disabilities who have either aged-out
of a medical program for children or who are in danger of soon
reaching the age cut off.

Among those included in the suit is Olivia Welter, an Illinois
woman who turned 21 on Nov. 9 and as a result faces losing the
level of state-funded care that her parents say has kept her
healthy and alive.

The decision by Judge William Hibbler of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois to agree to the request of
the Welters and other families to be included in a class action
suit strengthens the families' attempts to force the state of
Illinois to continue the care to their sons and daughters.  The
members of the class are suing the Illinois Department of
Healthcare and Family Services.

"It means there are many voices, not just one, or one family,"
says John Welter, Olivia's father.  "And because of the interest
of so many people across the country, it could have literally
national impact.  Having it certified as a class action law suit
means the guarantees and protections that might come with winning
this might be very broad and very enduring and very protective of
a lot of very vulnerable people.  That's our big hope and our
excitement."

Just weeks ago, the Welters thought Olivia's nurses would walk out
the door when she turned 21.  But in late October, the family
joined a lawsuit filed by the family of another disabled man who
had lost services, William Hampe.  The state of Illinois then
agreed that it would continue the level of services that Olivia
had been receiving while the case goes through the courts.

The U.S. Department of Justice has taken a stand in the case.
Earlier this summer, it asked to be included as a party of
interest, on behalf of the disabled plaintiffs.  The lawsuit
argues that it is a violation of the plaintiffs' rights, under the
federal Americans with Disabilities Act, to cut off important
health care funding that, as a result, could force them to live in
nursing homes or state institutions.

Olivia was born with multiple disabilities.  She cannot speak or
move and she uses a respirator to breathe and gets her food and
medicines through a tube.  Her parents say she responds when they
walk in the room by flailing her arms and making noise and that
they can tell when she is happy or in discomfort.

Olivia gets 16 hours a day of nursing care in her home under a
program for medically fragile and technology dependent children.
That care is expensive.  The nurses alone cost $220,000 a year.

On Talk of the Nation, Molly Hoffman, the advance practice nurse
at Children's Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, the clinic that
helps care for Olivia, said that although this is expensive, it
actually saves the state money.  "If Olivia were to be in the
hospital in the intensive care unit, which is where she would have
to stay if she was hospitalized, her cost would be over $600,000 a
year. So you can see the kind of money that her family is saving."

They've saved that care by -- along with the nurses -- providing
attentive and constant care that has kept Olivia healthy and out
of the hospital.  Until she turned 21, the state compared the cost
of her home care to the cost of living in a hospital.  But when
people turn 21, the state says the measure of comparison is no
longer that expensive hospital, but a less expensive nursing home.
The state says it will pay for the full cost of Olivia to move to
a nursing home.  Or it will give the family the equivalent amount
of money to pay for aides to come into the house and care for
Olivia.  The state argues that this still provides good care and
that there are caps on how much it is allowed to spend in the
adult program.

John and Tamara Welter doubt that their daughter would get the
care she needs to survive in a nursing home -- if they could even
find one that would take such a severely disabled adult.  If they
lose their suit against the state, they are prepared to do more of
the caregiving at home by themselves.  They already care for
Olivia the eight hours a day that the nurses are gone.  The state
expects them to hire less expensive personal care aides.  But the
Welters note that, by state law, aides are not allowed to give
Olivia her complex medicines or put her trache tube back in if it
were to fall out in an emergency.

Many states face similar dilemmas trying to fund expensive
care to children and adults who rely upon ventilators and other
technology.  States around the country face record budget deficits
and Medicaid costs are among the biggest causes.  Illinois alone
faces a $15 billion budget deficit this year.


IMMERSION CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Immersion Corporation's motion to dismiss the matter In re
Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation remains pending,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.  On Sept. 2, 2009, a securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

Over the following five weeks, four additional class action
complaints were filed. One of these four actions was later
voluntarily dismissed.

The securities class action complaints name the company and
certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as
defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based
on the company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial
statements.  The various complaints assert claims covering the
period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory
damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On Dec. 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.

Following the company's restatement of its financial statements,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010.
The motion is pending.


J & H INT'L: Recalls 36,000 Kitchentrend Stainless Steel Carafe
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J & H International, of Morris Plains, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 36,000 Kitchentrend Stainless Steel Carafe.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The handle can come loose from the body of the carafe and cause
liquid to spill, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Kitchentrend 1-liter stainless steel
carafes with model number P0930-X02.  The insulated carafe has a
chrome-plated plastic top with a black plastic base and is lined
with glass.  "Kitchentrend" and the model number can be found on
the packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11049.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Macy's & Macys.com from September 2010 through October 2010 for
about $20.

Consumers should stop using the recalled carafe immediately and
return it to the store where it was purchased for a full refund.
For additional information, contact J & H International anytime at
(800) 770-3214.


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Suit Seeks to Oust Pension Trustees
-----------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Gibbons, writing for The Florida Times-Union, reports
a lawyer representing Jacksonville city employees shut out of the
municipal pension plan has asked a judge to replace several of the
trustees overseeing the plan.

Attorney Mark Bogen's complaint, filed in Circuit Court, asks that
city Finance Director Mickey Miller and Human Resources Chief Chad
Poppell be removed from the board of trustees because their dual
roles creates a conflict of interest.

"We are seeking to clean up this mess so it doesn't happen again,"
Mr. Bogen said.  "We're asking to have people removed who have not
acted in the best interests of their members."

The complaint also charges that Beth Mangold is not qualified for
her job as administrator of the pension system and should be
replaced, and it asks that Calvin Ray, the former director of
administration and finance, be barred from being a trustee.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of about 100 employees suing the
city because more than 1,000 were required to sign up for Social
Security rather than the more lucrative pension fund.  Internal
e-mails from a senior manager in 2007 show officials knew the
practice violated the city charter but attempted to pin the blame
on the employees.

Those suits have since been turned into a class action, which
Mr. Bogen says now includes thousands of employees.

Suing the trustees and administrators is "outrageous," city
General Counsel Cindy Laquidara said.

"These are government employees appointed to their position
pursuant to an ordinance," she said.  "It's outrageous to sue
individuals under these circumstances."

For years, the city required employees to take a physical and, if
they failed, it put them in Social Security rather than the city
pension plan.  Doing so slashes how much the city has to pay while
the employee is working and ends its obligation when the employee
retires.

At the beginning of the year, the city put all employees in the
pension plan, a move that upped personnel costs by about $3
million a year.

Messrs. Miller, Ray and Popell knew the city was systematically
shutting people out of the pension plan, the complaint says, but
failed to live up to their fiduciary duty to the employers.

"They were paying millions in Social Security taxes," Mr. Bogen
said. "They knew that couldn't be right."

In addition, the complaint says, Mr. Miller hired Ms. Mangold, his
former secretary, as the administrator of the fund without seeking
the approval of the rest of the board of trustees.

In the three years she's been there, Ms. Mangold has not worked on
behalf of the funds' members, the complaint says.

The broader issue of how to compensate the employees who should
have been in the pension fund but were not allowed to join will be
addressed next week, when the city and employees begin mediation.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls More Children's Benadryl and Motrin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus and Jonathan Rockoff at The Wall Street Journal
report that Johnson & Johnson recalled more children's Benadryl
and Motrin after identifying additional manufacturing problems,
but said the problems don't threaten the safety of consumers.

According to The Wall Street Journal, J&J is withdrawing about
4 million packages of children's Benadryl allergy tablets and
about 800,000 bottles of junior-strength Motrin caplets from
drugstores and suppliers because they were made under less-than-
rigorous manufacturing standards.  The products were made at J&J's
Fort Washington, Pa., plant, before it was temporarily closed due
to a string of quality issues, a spokeswoman said, the report
relates.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the company isn't asking
consumers to return the popular over-the-counter medicines and
says they can safely keep taking the drugs.  J&J said the products
passed its quality testing, and it hasn't received any reports of
side effects, the report discloses.

The withdrawal is the latest fall-out from the manufacturing
problems at J&J, which have led to more than a half-dozen recalls
of Benadryl, Motrin, Tylenol and over-the-counter medicines, some
contact lenses and certain hip-replacement parts, The Wall Street
Journal says.  The problems, the report relates, are costing J&J
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, also led to a
shake-up of the company's manufacturing.

J&J's McNeil unit discovered the inadequate manufacturing
processes as part of a review it conducted in the wake of the
issues, the spokeswoman said, the report notes.

The Wall Street Journal posts that the affected products are:
Children's Benadryl Allergy Fastmelt Tablets, in cherry and grape
flavors, which were distributed in the U.S., Canada, Belize,
Barbados, Puerto Rico, St. Martin, and St. Thomas; and Junior
Strength Motrin Caplets, 24-count, distributed in the U.S.

Various governmental entities are investigating J&J over its
handling of the recalls, including a criminal probe by the U.S.
Justice Department, the report adds.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval of a settlement agreement
resolving a consolidated action against Juniper Networks, Inc.,
according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed in the Northern District of California against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
and directors.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW,
and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs.
The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 9, 2007.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option
grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false
and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect
financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock
option grants.  The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims
for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities
from July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain
of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The order
dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the
extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14,
2001.  The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld all
of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend their
complaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10,
2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who
received or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issued
pursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, dated
March 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreen
Technologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible
Senior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration
statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current and
former officers and directors of the company, their immediate
families, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity
controlled by any such person.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the
company and each of the company's current and former officers and
directors.  The settlement is contingent upon approval by the
Boards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by the
Court.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and
its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and
released in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by the
company.  The company considers the proposed payment to be
probable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded the
cash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in its
consolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 12, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and a fairness hearing was scheduled for
August 30, 2010, to consider whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.

On August 31, 2010, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement and issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice.

Under the settlement, the claims against the Company and its
officers and directors were dismissed with prejudice and released
in exchange for a $169 million cash payment by the Company.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Pfizer Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several lawsuits seeking to enjoin the Company's merger with
Pfizer, Inc., according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

Since the announcement on October 12, 2010 of the King
Pharmaceutical, Inc.'s entry into an agreement and plan of merger
with Pfizer Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., a
number of putative class action lawsuits have been filed in
federal and state court in Tennessee by purported shareholders of
the Company on behalf of themselves and other shareholders of the
Company.

The complaints name as defendants the Company and its directors
and, in certain cases, Pfizer.

The complaints variously allege, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders of the Company in connection with the Company's entry
into the agreement and plan of merger with Pfizer.

Certain of the complaints also allege that the Company and/or
Pfizer aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, an
order enjoining the proposed transaction, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.


MACSPORTS INC: Recalls 2,300 Folding Camp Rockers
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MacSports Inc., of La Verne, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,300 Folding Camp Rockers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The plastic anchors attaching the fabric seat back to the frame
can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

L.L. Bean has received six reports of the plastic anchors
breaking, resulting in four reports of falls.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves L.L. Bean folding camp rockers with a fabric
cover and a steel frame.  The rockers have a fabric/mesh seat and
back and a cup holder on the right armrest. "L.L. Bean" is printed
on the seat back.  Rockers with the number RNR113 and RNR114
listed on the white tag under the seat are included in the recall.
Folding camp rockers with fabric anchors are not included in this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11050.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
L.L. Bean stores nationwide, llbean.com and through the L.L. Bean
catalog from April 2009 through July 2010 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled rockers with
plastic anchors and contact L.L. Bean to receive a free
replacement rocker.  For additional information, contact L.L. Bean
at (800) 555-9717 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.llbean.com/recall/


MARINER ENERGY: Negotiating Settlement of Two Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariner Energy, Inc., has completed agreed-upon confirmatory
discovery and continue to negotiate in good faith to finalize a
settlement agreement to resolve two lawsuits filed in connection
with its planned merger with Apache Corporation, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, Mariner and Apache Corporation disclosed that
they entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Apache
will acquire Mariner in a stock and cash transaction.  The
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 14, 2010, by and among
Apache, Mariner and ZMZ Acquisitions LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Apache -- Merger Sub -- contemplates a merger --
Merger -- whereby Mariner will be merged with and into Merger Sub,
with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Apache.

Subsequent to the announcement of the merger with Apache, two
stockholder lawsuits styled as class actions were commenced on
behalf of Mariner stockholders challenging the merger.

The suit styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Mariner Energy, Inc., et al, Cause No. 2010-24355, was filed in
the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas against
Mariner and its directors.  Plaintiff alleges that the Mariner
directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell the
company through an unfair process and at an unfair price, and that
Mariner aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction and to be awarded
attorney's fees.

The matter Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v.
Scott D. Josey, et al, cause No. 5427-VCP, was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Mariner, its
directors, certain Mariner officers, Apache and Merger Sub.
Plaintiff alleges that the Mariner directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell the company through an unfair
process and at an unfair price, and by agreeing to the vesting of
certain restricted stock held by Mariner management.  Plaintiff
also alleges that Apache and Merger Sub aided and abetted in those
breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger
and to be awarded attorney's fees.

On Aug. 1, 2010, the parties to the Delaware action entered into a
memorandum of understanding, which, when reduced to a settlement
agreement, is intended to be a final resolution of that action.
Also on Aug. 1, 2010, the parties to the Texas action agreed to be
bound by the memorandum of understanding with respect to that
action.  In connection with the settlement, and in exchange for
the releases, Apache and Mariner agreed to, and on Aug. 2, 2010
Apache, Mariner and Merger Sub did, amend the Merger Agreement to
eliminate the termination fee in the event that Mariner terminates
the Merger Agreement in order to enter into a "superior proposal"
with another party and to make certain additional disclosures in
the proxy statement/prospectus for the transaction filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Additionally, in the event that any proceedings regarding
appraisal rights under Section 262 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law are commenced following the merger, Apache and
Mariner have waived and will not present any argument that shares
of Mariner restricted stock granted pursuant to Mariner's 2008
Long-Term Performance-Based Restricted Stock Program will be
counted in determining the total number of Mariner shares
outstanding in such proceeding.

The parties have completed agreed-upon confirmatory discovery and
continue to negotiate in good faith to finalize a settlement
agreement to present to the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware for final approval. Pursuant to the settlement, the
Delaware action will be dismissed with prejudice on the merits,
the plaintiffs in the Texas action will voluntarily dismiss that
action with prejudice, and all defendants will be released from
any and all claims relating to, among other things, the merger,
the Merger Agreement and any disclosures made in connection
therewith. The settlement is subject to customary conditions,
including consummation of the merger, completion of certain
confirmatory discovery, class certification, and final approval by
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The settlement
will not affect the form or amount of the consideration to be
received by Mariner stockholders in the merger.

The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events, and transactions
complained of in these actions or that they have engaged in any
wrongdoing. The defendants entered into the settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction
of further litigation.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Role
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports an important but little-understood player in the
home foreclosure process, the Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems Inc., has been buffeted by a growing number of class-
action lawsuits and unfavorable court rulings, a Reuters Legal
review of Westlaw data shows.  In addition, according to three
sources, the company is under scrutiny by state attorneys general.
The legal onslaught could prove to be a new drag on the still-
sputtering U.S. housing market.

The company, known as MERS, is an electronic registry of more than
66 million mortgage loans.  Created in 1995 by major banks to
facilitate mortgage securitization, MERS records the transfer of
deeds and promissory notes and often acts as a representative, or
"nominee," for financial institutions during public auctions of
foreclosed properties.  Its members include the largest U.S.
mortgage providers and servicers.

In October, the attorneys generals of all 50 states announced a
joint investigation into "robo-signers," employees of banks and
mortgage servicers who signed off on thousands of foreclosures a
day.  The AGs' investigation now includes an examination of MERS'
role in those foreclosures, according to a lawyer involved in the
investigation and two outside lawyers who said they have spoken
with investigators.

Patrick Madigan, an assistant attorney general in Iowa, which
leads the 50-state investigation, declined to comment about the
matter.  A MERS spokesman said the company has not been contacted
by any state attorney general's office in connection with the
foreclosure investigation.  In testimony to the Senate Banking
Committee last week, MERS chief executive R.K. Arnold said the
company recently suspended robo-signers who worked as "MERS
certifying officers."

In the wake of the housing market meltdown, banks have been a
common target of plaintiffs' lawyers representing homeowners
facing foreclosure.  Now, MERS is emerging as another defendant-
of-choice in the exploding foreclosure crisis, as lawyers seize on
its role as a foreclosure middleman in their ongoing effort to
attack the legitimacy of foreclosures.  It's certainly a juicy
target: from the beginning of 2007 through October, MERS served as
the lender, servicer or plaintiff in 508,268 foreclosure auction
notices, 12% of the nationwide total, according to data provided
exclusively to Reuters Legal by research firm RealtyTrac. That's
roughly the same amount as for major lenders such as Bank of
America and Wells Fargo.

Since September, lawyers have filed class-action lawsuits against
MERS on behalf of homeowners in Georgia, Florida, New York and
Kentucky.  The lawsuits allege that MERS did not have legitimate
title to the foreclosed properties, so the foreclosures were
fraudulent.  Besides seeking damages, many of the lawsuits are
asking for court orders to vacate all foreclosures in the states
where MERS was involved.  And in the last six months, judges in at
least six states have halted foreclosures because they found that
MERS either lacked standing to be an agent for mortgage firms or
had improperly transferred ownership rights.

If the trend continues, it's not only MERS that could suffer.  The
legal assault on MERS casts doubt on the ownership rights of
countless foreclosed properties.  And because foreclosed
properties represent such a significant segment of the current
housing market -- a full quarter of all homes sold in the U.S.
during the second quarter were in foreclosure, according to
RealtyTrac -- the broader housing market is exposed.  "A lot of
people who have bought homes or are looking to buy homes are going
to have a lot of problems because of MERS," said Alan White, an
associate professor at Valparaiso University School of Law in
Indiana who has written extensively about foreclosures.

MERS says the accusations are unfounded.  "Claims that MERS
disrupts or creates a legal defect in the mortgage or deed of
trust are not supported by fact or legal precedent," chief
executive Arnold said last month.  In a statement issued on
Nov. 12, MERS said: "The courts have always found in MERS' favor
when our members followed all other required laws and procedures."

Indeed, in the last couple of years, MERS has prevailed either at
trial or on appeal in more than a dozen lawsuits in which it was
the defendant.  Most recently, U.S. District Judge James Teilborg
of Phoenix dismissed a consolidated class-action suit against
MERS, ruling on Sept. 30 that banks properly named MERS as the
nominee for the original lenders and that plaintiffs failed to
prove allegations that MERS improperly deprived homeowners of
their property.

But more decisions have been going the other way.  In May, Kings
County, New York, Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack ruled that
MERS had improperly transferred a mortgage to HSBC, when its own
records indicated the party with a right to foreclose was Wells
Fargo.  MERS creates a "mortgage twilight zone," Judge Schack
said, calling arguments that the foreclosure in question was
legitimate "incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous."
He dismissed the foreclosure and ruled that it could not be
resubmitted.

And on Oct. 6, U.S. District Judge Garr King of Oregon issued an
injunction halting a foreclosure sale after determining that MERS
lacked standing to transfer the mortgage.  "The public interest is
served by ensuring that foreclosure sales occur only when there is
no defect in the preceding property transactions," King wrote.  A
MERS spokeswoman said company executives were unavailable to
comment on these cases.

'STRAW MAN'

MERS' standing to foreclose was seriously eroded last year by the
Kansas Supreme Court, which unanimously rejected a claim by MERS
that as the representative of a lender that owned the second
mortgage on a property, it should have been notified of a
foreclosure action brought by the owner of the first mortgage.  In
its ruling, the court called MERS a "straw man" that lacks the
rights of a creditor.  The decision likened the firm to "the blind
men of Indian legend (describing) an elephant -- their description
depended on which part they were touching at any given time."

Plaintiffs' attorneys are now commonly citing the Kansas case as
the basis for class-action lawsuits against MERS on behalf of
thousands of homeowners.  A class-action lawsuit filed Oct. 23 in
Fulton County, Ga., claims MERS has no standing to initiate
foreclosure proceedings.  The lawsuit seeks damages and asks the
court to invalidate foreclosures in Georgia where MERS was a
party.  Class-action complaints filed in federal courts in New
York and Florida in September make similar claims.

The pressure on MERS shows no sign of letting up.  John Walsh, the
acting Comptroller of the Currency, testified before the House
Financial Services Committee last week that his agency is
conducting an examination of MERS' "corporate governance, control
systems, and accuracy and timeliness of information maintained in
the MERS system."  The inquiry, Walsh said, is being coordinated
with the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and
the Federal Housing Finance Agency.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces 2 Class Suits Over Superior Well Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Diamond
Acquisition Corp., were sued in August 2010 in three putative
shareholder class actions, two of which remain pending:

   * Steven Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Other
     Similarly Situated Shareholders of Superior Well Services,
     Inc. v. Superior Well Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action
     No. 2:10-CV-01121-CB, in the United States District Court for
     the Western District of Pennsylvania

   * Jordan Denney, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
     Similarly Situated v. David E. Wallace, et al., Civil Action
     No. 10-1154, in the United States District Court for the
     Western District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuits suits were recently assigned to the same judge, and
the Company has moved the court to consolidate them.

The suits were brought against Superior Well Services Inc., the
individual members of its board of directors, certain of
Superior's senior officers, Nabors and Diamond.

Nabors and its affiliates completed a merger transaction with
Superior on September 10, 2010, whereby Nabor acquired all the
outstanding common stock of Superior for $681.3 million.  Superior
provides a wide range of wellsite solutions to oil and natural gas
companies, primarily technical pumping services and down-hole
surveying services,

The complaints allege that Superior's officers and directors
violated various provisions of the Exchange Act and breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Nabors
and Diamond aided and abetted these violations.

The complaints sought injunctive relief, including an injunction
against the consummation of the Merger, monetary damages, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Each of the claims against Superior and its directors is covered
by insurance after a deductible amount, the Company notes.

The Company notes in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, that it believes the cases are without merit
and are vigorously defending them.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Discovery in California Securities Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter In re Novatel Wireless Securities
Litigation, is ongoing, according to Novatel Wireless, Inc.'s
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the company's stock between
February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v.
Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al. , Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB)
(Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D.
Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re
Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the
consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly
purchased the company's stock between February 27, 2007 and
November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company
and certain of the company's current and former officers as
defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the
company issued materially false and misleading statements during
the relevant time period regarding the strength of its products
and market share, its financial results and its internal controls.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
costs. The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the defendants filed a petition
for permission to appeal that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On August 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit
denied defendants' petition for permission to appeal the district
court's order granting class certification.

Discovery in this case is ongoing. The Company intends to defend
this litigation vigorously. Due to the preliminary nature of this
litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a range of exposure
associated with this litigation.


NOVELL INC: Attachmate Bid Attracts Class Action Probes
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Michael Kerner, writing for InterNetNews, reports that not
everyone is happy about Attachmate's bid to acquire Novell for
$2.2 billion.  In fact, the deal has now attracted at least two
(and likely many more to come) legal "investigations" which could
ultimately result in class action law suits.

One of the investigations is being led by Weiss & Lurie, a
national class action and shareholder rights law firm while a
second investigation is being run by Kendal Law Group, led by
former federal judge Joe Kendall.

Both groups are going to examine whether or not Novell has
breached its fiduciary duty with the proposed Attachmate deal, by
not getting the best deal possible for Novell's shareholders.

Attachmate is set to pay Novell shareholders $6.10 per share which
is a premium over the value of the share before the deal was
announced.  However the price per share is still below the target
price for the shares set by at least one analyst, which could be
as high as $7.50.

InterNetNews says these types of "investigations" aren't all that
uncommon.  Everyone always wants to get as much as they can and if
there is ever even a hint that more money is on the table,
shareholder groups and class action lawyers get involved.

"It's unclear at this early stage if these investigation will have
any impact on the expected 2011 closing date for the acquisition.
However, given the large shareholder buy-in already from Elliott
Associates, I don't think that Novell needs to be too concerned,"
InterNetNews' Mr. Kerner says.


OAKLAND, CA: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the city of
Oakland, Calif., did not violate federal labor law when it
required a police officer who quit before two years to pay back
80% of her $8,000 training costs, the United States Court of
Appeals for Ninth Circuit ruled Friday.

The federal appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the district
court's dismissal of Courtney Gordon's class action for failure to
state a claim.

The former police officer's debt was a "voluntarily accepted loan"
from the city, not a kickback under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Senior Circuit Judge Procter Hug wrote.

Ms. Gordon had argued that Oakland's longstanding reimbursement
agreement, which required her to repay 80% of her training costs,
or $6,400, when she resigned before her second year of service,
violated federal law because it "caused her to receive less than
the federal minimum wage during her final workweek."

The city deducted part of the debt from Gordon's final paycheck.
She later paid the remainder out-of-pocket and moved to file an
amended complaint.

The federal judge dismissed Ms. Gordon's motion, ruling that
because her final paycheck exceeded the minimum wage, the city's
demand for reimbursement was legal.

Ms. Gordon fared no better in the 9th Circuit.

"The $5,268.03 payment Gordon made to the city is repayment of a
voluntarily accepted loan, not a kickback," Judge Hug wrote.

Oakland could require its police applicants to be fully trained,
at no cost to the city, before signing a contract, Judge Hug
explained.  Instead, the city advances them the cost of training
and requires that they pay back a pro-rated portion if they resign
before completing five years on the job.

"Gordon, however, chose not to serve the five years necessary to
secure complete forgiveness," Judge Hug wrote.  "Despite the debt
Gordon owed following her resignation, the city satisfied the
FLSA's requirements by paying Gordon at least minimum wage for her
final week of work.  The city was therefore free to seek repayment
of Gordon's training debt as an ordinary creditor."

A copy of the Opinion in Gordon v. City of Oakland, No. 09-16167
(9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/hCzbl

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Jon Webster, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JON WEBSTER
          1985 Bonifacio Street, Suite 102
          Concord, CA 94520-2264
          Telephone: (925) 609-7600

The city of Oakland is represented by:

          Eugene B. Elliot, Esq.
          Michael C. Wenzel, Esq.
          BERTRAND FOX & ELLIOT
          2749 Hyde Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: 415-353-0999


PEABODY ENERGY: Petition of Mandamus Pending in Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along the
Mississippi Gulf coast filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi
against more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal companies,
including Peabody Energy Corp.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions
"were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the
destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and sought damages
based on several legal theories.  The defendants filed motions to
dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal and subject matter
jurisdiction.

In August 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the political question doctrine and for lack
of standing.

In October 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed in part the
decision of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs had
standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass and
negligence claims.  The court held that plaintiffs did not satisfy
the prudential standing requirement for their unjust enrichment,
fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims and
dismissed those claims and ordered that the case be remanded to
the district court for further proceedings.

In March 2010, the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel opinion and
ordered a hearing en banc before the full Fifth Circuit to
consider plaintiffs' appeal.  After the en banc court was properly
constituted, a recusal by one of the judges resulted in the en
banc court losing its quorum.

On May 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order indicating that
the court had no authority to reinstate the panel decision and
directing the clerk to dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Mandamus with the United
States Supreme Court, according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend against and oppose it vigorously, but cannot
predict its outcome. Based on the Company's evaluation of the
issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss
cannot be reasonably estimated. However, based on current
information, the Company believes this matter is likely to be
resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


PIONEER FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Bread Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
iafrica.com reports The Children's Resources Centre, Black Sash,
Cosatu's Western Cape branch, the National Consumer Forum and five
individual bread consumers have launched a class action against
Pioneer Foods, Tiger Consumer Brands and Premier Foods, according
to a joint statement released on Tuesday.

The application against the three major bread producers was filed
in the Cape High Court on November 19, 2010 and follows the
Competition Commission's findings that the companies participated
in a cartel that fixed the price of bread in December 2006.

Human Rights lawyer at Abraham Kiewitz Attorneys, Charles Abrahams
on Tuesday applied for permission on behalf of the group to act as
class representative.  "It's only the second class action ever
undertaken in South Africa, and the first of its kind to seek
actual damages for the victims, and on such a large scale.
Although administrative penalties have been handed down by the
Competition Commission, the consumers who suffered as a result of
the unlawful actions of these companies have not been compensated.

Representing millions of consumers

"Our class action is initially aimed at representing the millions
of bread consumers in the Western Cape, but we intend to extend it
nationally as well.  Should we be successful, we would like to set
up a Trust that would benefit consumers," Mr. Abrahams said.

In a separate but parallel class action, a group of small
independent bread distributors, including Imraahn Ismail-Mukaddam
who blew the whistle on the price-fixing scandal, is also seeking
compensation on behalf of distributors in the Western Cape.

The Competition Commission recently reached a settlement with
Pioneer Foods after both Tiger Consumer Brands and Premier Foods
admitted involvement in the cartel.  Premier was granted leniency
for co-operating with the Commission and Tiger Consumer Brands
reached a settlement in late 2007.

'They denied wrongdoing'

Black Sash National Director Marcella Naidoo said that although
all the companies received record fines, the penalties were still
considerably less than the initial amounts recommended by the
Commission.  "They had asked for a penalty of 10 percent of
Pioneer's national annual turnover for 2006/7, and 10 percent of
its turnover for the production and sale of bread in the Western
Cape for the same period.

"Although the one billion [rand] fine is the biggest ever imposed
on a South African company, it must be remembered that Pioneer
Foods was completely uncooperative.  They initially denied any
wrongdoing and then vigorously resisted prosecution and the
payment of any penalties," Ms. Naidoo added.

Chairperson of the National Consumer Forum Thami Bolani insisted
the unlawful actions of the three bread producers violated the
provisions in the 'Bill of Rights' dealing with the right to food
and nutrition, especially for children.  "We believe colluding
companies deserve harsher penalties and that consumers should be
compensated.  Consumer law is developing very rapidly in South
Africa and we hope a class action of this kind will set an
important precedent, particularly in the interests of poor
communities," Mr. Bolani said.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik has recently filed new labor
lawsuits against Raytheon Company, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and
Ecolab on behalf of California employees for alleged violations of
wage and hour worker rights.

The employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed
Case No. 3:2010-cv-02080 against Raytheon Company on October 7,
2010.  According to the complaint, Raytheon, the technology giant
specializing in defense and homeland security, failed to have a
"timekeeping system to accurately record and pay" the laboratory
employees "for the actual number of hours they worked each day" in
violation of California overtime laws.

On November 2, 2010, the overtime law firm of Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Case No. 3:2010-cv-02255 against Ecolab
-- the global leader in developing cleaning and repair products.
According to the complaint, the case involves allegations that
Ecolab failed to properly pay the proper amount of overtime wages
to repair and maintenance employees with job titles such as "Route
Managers," "Route Sales Managers," "Sales Route Specialists,"
"Service Installers" and "Service Professionals."

On November 17, 2010, the employment law lawyers of Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Case No. 3:2010-cv-02373 against
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company in the Southern District of
California, alleging that the rental car company violated state
labor laws by failing to pay Management Assistants and Trainees
for the actual number of hours they worked and spent training for
the job, including both regular hours and overtime hours.

The class action lawyers of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are
also currently litigating cases against Lockheed Martin, MGM,
Trump, Pepsi Bottling Group, Verizon, Union Bank, Macy's, Home
Depot, C.H. Robinson and Bank of America, just to name a few.

For more information about California overtime laws and workplace
rights, contact an employment law attorney at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik by visiting http://www.bamlawca.com/or
calling 877-852-3912.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm dedicated to representing employees who are victims of
discrimination, wage and hour violations, harassment or other
illegal and unfair treatment in the workplace.  The labor law firm
handles individual claims and class actions brought by employees
throughout California.


RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action initiated by Marcos R. Moreno in
California, the Company disclosed in its November 5, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, California
and has been removed to Federal District Court for the Central
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.

Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 10, 2010.

The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to
provide rest and meal breaks or to pay compensation in lieu of
those breaks, failure to pay timely wages on termination, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful business
practices and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and special damages,
restitution for unfair competition, premium pay, penalties and
wages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and
costs.

On March 24, 2010, the Court granted a stay of the case pending
the outcome of a California case currently pending before the
California Supreme Court for review.  That case involves similar
allegations regarding rest and meal breaks.  It is anticipated
that the California Supreme Court will provide useful guidance on
rest and meal breaks when the opinion in that case is issued.

The Company believes that the Moreno suit is without merit.


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser's Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an indirect
purchaser complaint arising out of the U.S. Department of
Justice's investigation into possible antitrust violations in the
packaged ice industry, is pending.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice had instituted an investigation of the
packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative
class action lawsuits, were filed against the Company, Reddy Ice
Corporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund,
Arctic Glacier, Inc., and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in
various federal courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws and related claims
and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been
transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison
counsel for the putative direct and indirect purchaser classes. On
September 15, 2009, the lead plaintiffs for each of the putative
direct and indirect purchaser classes filed consolidated amended
complaints.

The Company and Arctic Glacier filed motions to dismiss both of
these complaints. Home City filed a motion to dismiss the indirect
purchaser complaint and entered into a proposed settlement
agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The motions by the
Company and Arctic Glacier to dismiss the direct purchaser claims
were denied by the Court on July 1, 2010. An order granting
preliminary approval of Home City's settlement with the direct
purchasers and authorizing dissemination of notice was entered on
September 2, 2010.

The motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint are
pending, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.


REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Statement of Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., has yet to be served a putative class
action Statement of Claim filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta.

On March 8, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against the Company in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in Canada, alleging
violations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking general
damages, special and pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplary
damages, interest and costs.

This Statement of Claim has yet not been served on the company,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.


REDDY ICE: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held on Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under the
federal securities laws, according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the company and certain of its current or former senior
officers.  The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege
that the defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the
existence of, and the company's alleged participation in, an
alleged antitrust conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.  The
complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various alleged
classes of purchasers of the company's common stock.

On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel.  The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 2, 2009.

The Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  A hearing was held on those
motions on October 22, 2010. The motions were taken under
advisement.


REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in Ontario
----------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., defends a putative class action filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.

On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against the company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in Canada, alleging violations of Part VI of the Competition Act
and seeking general damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.

A case conference regarding this matter was held on June 9, 2010.
In that case conference, a schedule was set for proceedings
relating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Class,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Change of Class Action Lawyers Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien agreed on Nov. 9 to
substitute attorney Jeffrey Millar's former law firm, Brent Coon &
Associates, with his new employer Saville and Flint of Glen
Carbon, in a proposed class action against Redbox DVD rental
kiosks.

Mr. Millar, who used to be employed by the Lakin Law Firm in Wood
River (now LakinChapman) before he left to join Coon's firm, is
among a group of lawyers that represents Redbox lead plaintiff
Laurie Piechur.

Ms. Piechur proposes to lead a class of DVD renters who claim that
Redbox Automated Retail Inc. charged inappropriate late charges to
customers using its kiosks.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $350,000, costs and other
relief.

If certified, Ms. Piechur's suit would be a nationwide class
action.

Redbox denies the claims in the suit.

The company has tried unsuccessfully to have the case dismissed.

The last filing in the case was a move by Redbox asking to be
allowed to file additional defenses based on information gathered
in the suit's ongoing discovery.

That motion was filed in September.

A move by the owner of Blockbuster Video, a third party in the
suit's discovery, is also moving to quash Ms. Piechur's discovery
requests.

Eric Brandfonbrener of Perkins Coie of Chicago and Robert Sprague
represent Redbox.

Millar, Thomas Maag and others represent Ms. Piechur and the
proposed class.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young presides until his
retirement Nov. 30.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.


RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Part of Class Action Verdict Up for Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vockrodt, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
a Missouri appellate court on Tuesday sent for a new trial large
portions of a $104 million verdict in a massive class-action
lawsuit against banks offering second mortgages.

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, also upheld
portions of the verdict and increased an actual damage award by
more than $2 million.

A 2008 trial in Jackson County against Residential Funding Co.,
Household Financing Corp. and Wachovia Equity Servicing LLC had
resulted in a $5.1 million verdict for actual damages and $99
million in punitive damages.

The entities were sued by a Blue Springs couple alleging that the
financing corporations were charging interest and fees as
originators of second mortgages that were out of bounds of the
Second Mortgage Loan Act passed in Missouri in 1979.

The appellate court increased the $5.1 million actual damage award
to approximately $7.5 million.

That does not include an attorney's fee award for the plaintiffs,
which could land in the $3 million range.

The punitive damage award was sent back to Jackson County Circuit
Court for a new trial after the appellate court found a procedural
error in the instructions given to the jury.

A new award could result in a higher or lower punitive damage
award; the appellate court did not dispute whether there should
have been a punitive award.

Fred Walters, who represents the plaintiffs and is a partner with
Kansas City-based Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan PC, said he
is banking on a higher award this time around, given the bad
publicity mortgage companies have endured as the housing crisis
unfolded.

"Given what we have been hearing about the mortgage companies over
the past few years . . . I don't think the mortgage companies are
high on the list of favored defendants by the public as a whole,"
Mr. Walters said.

A lawyer representing the mortgage companies could not immediately
be reached for comment.


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 20,000 Bosch Hammer Drills
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, of Mt. Prospect, Illinois,
announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 Bosch hammer drills.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The models have a grounding system and trigger switch that could
cause ground wire abrasion and/or ground connector failure posing
a shock hazard.  In addition, the switch trigger could become
stuck in the "on" position posing an injury hazard to the user.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Bosch 1/2 inch 2-Speed Hammer Drill with
model number HD19-2, HD19-2D, HD19-2L and 1/2 inch 2-Speed Hammer
Drills with model number HD 21-2 are included in this recall.
"BOSCH" is printed in red lettering on the side of the drills.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11051.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Switzerland and sold
through home improvement, hardware and major retailers nationwide
and various distributors from September 2009 through August 2010
for between about $140 and $220.

Consumers should immediately stop using the hammer drill and
return hammer drill to Robert Bosch Tool Corporation for repair.
For additional information, contact Bosch toll-free at (866) 244-
2110 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.Boschtools.com/


SHORELINE MGT: Sued for Violations of State Wage and Hour Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Land, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Shoreline Management & Development Corp., et
al., Case No. 10-CH-49904 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 19,
2010), charges the defendants with a) failing to keep true and
accurate time records; b) failing to compensate class members for
all hours worked; c) improperly deducting wages from class
members' pay for improper charges; d) improperly classifying class
members as independent contractors; and e) failing to pay overtime
compensation, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, the Illinois
Employee Classification Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Antoine Land, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, worked as a
non-exempt technician for defendants.  Defendants are in the
business of installing and servicing cable television services in
the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHEN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc., and other steel manufacturing companies
continue to defend direct purchaser class action antitrust
lawsuits.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the company and eight other steel manufacturing
companies were served with a class action antitrust complaint,
filed in the Court in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold
in the United States, starting in 2005, by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.  Six additional
lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the original, have
also been filed in the same federal court, each of them likewise
seeking similar class certification.  All but one of the
Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all direct purchasers of steel products between Jan. 1, 2005
and the present.  The other Complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel
products within the same time period.  All Complaints seek treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

On Jan. 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.  On
June 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.

The parties are currently conducting limited discovery.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


SYDNEY: Class Action Boundaries in Contamination Suit Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post, reports the proposed
boundaries for a class-action lawsuit related to contamination
associated with the operation of the Sydney steel plant and coke
ovens site have been narrowed, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said
Tuesday.

"Naturally, the steelworks and the coke ovens divide the city into
two, and so we have a north boundary and a south boundary,"
Ray Wagner said.

The detailed descriptions of the new proposed southern and
northern zone boundaries are each more than seven pages.  The new
boundaries could include approximately 6,000 households, he said.

"The idea, of course, in the north (zone) was to encompass most of
the Whitney Pier area that as best as we can discern as a result
of the deposition of contaminants on the ground, the area that
would be impacted . . . in excess of the CCME (Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment) guidelines," Mr. Wagner said.

In the case of lead, those guidelines are 140 parts per million
and 12 parts per mission for arsenic, he added.

The southern zone includes part of Ashby, north end Sydney and
downtown Sydney.

Originally, the plaintiffs had proposed the class include
residents and property owners within a 5.6-kilometer radius of
Victoria Road and Laurier Street.  Justice John Murphy issued a
partial ruling in June indicating he will certify the matter as a
class action but only once the proposed class is significantly
narrowed.

"Our goals are to ensure, basically, that it's not too expensive,
it's not too big, and at the same time we're not leaving people
out that should be included," Mr. Wagner said.  "When you're
dealing with chemical deposition into a community, it knows no
definitive boundaries, so all we're left with is trying to do the
best that we can.  It's not perfect, but we think it's pretty
good."

Members of the residential class would have to have lived in
Sydney for a continuous seven-year period.

The province has introduced evidence arguing that the North of
Coke Ovens report compiled by Jacques Whitford, Dillon, ADI and
CBCL should be used to determine the boundaries.

"It basically says that the area should be circumscribed much
narrower than what we have," Mr. Wagner said.

He added he expects them to argue that south Sydney should not be
included, but noted the work of Dr. Tim Lambert shows
contamination in that area.

The lawsuit against Ottawa and the province was filed six years
ago.  No defenses have been filed and discovery hasn't yet taken
place.  The representative plaintiffs are seeking some financial
compensation and a medical monitoring fund.

The class action will be certified on several causes of action --
for both residents and property owners on the basis of breach of
fiduciary duty, strict liability and nuisance, and for property
owners for negligence.  Justice Murphy has also added negligent
and intentional battery and trespass.

Once Justice Murphy approves the boundaries, a certification order
will be filed and then they will move into discovery.  A trial
looking at the issues common to the class will follow, which could
still be several years away.  One of those issues would be the
chemical levels at which the court would order remediation.

It is the first environmental class action to be certified in the
province.

Documents that have been filed with the court in the case,
including the detailed proposed boundaries, can be found online at
sydneyclassaction.ca

The hearing will take place Dec. 16.  It will be broadcast online
on the provincial courts Web site, http://www.courts.ns.ca/


SYNGENTA CROP: Stephen Tillery Can Pursue Atrazine Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert will let Stephen Tillery
pursue a class action for water companies claiming contamination
from weed killer atrazine, but he will set high hurdles for Mr.
Tillery to clear.

On Nov. 18, Judge Gilbert granted Mr. Tillery's clients standing
to sue Syngenta Crop Protection, but he wrote that he might deny
it at trial.

Judge Gilbert wrote that they must show that "any costs they seek
to recover, past or future, must have been or will be necessary in
order to satisfy their statutory obligation to provide potable
water, not simply to serve a lesser, though laudable, goal."

He wrote that he made no judgment as to whether Syngenta is
responsible for atrazine in water sources or for costs of
monitoring and remediating water.

"Whether the plaintiffs' past costs were actually caused by
Syngenta or by some other concern or atrazine manufacturer is a
matter to be fleshed out at later stages of this litigation," he
wrote.

He wrote that he made no judgment as to whether atrazine is a
defective product.

"At this stage of the litigation, it is enough that plaintiffs
allege it is so," he wrote.

He put aside for now Syngenta's plea that future damages are
speculative and the alleged nuisance is temporary, finding those
items might limit the recovery.

"The question of how much the plaintiffs can legally recover is a
matter to be decided at a later stage of this case," he wrote.

Likewise he put aside Syngenta's argument that a five year statute
of limitations bars any claims prior to March 2005, five years
before Mr. Tillery sued Syngenta.

"Whether their recovery, if any, is limited by the statute of
limitations is an issue for later in the case," he wrote.

Tillery's clients claim Syngenta made atrazine and sold it to
farmers knowing it had great potential to run off crop land and
into bodies of water.

They seek to hold Syngenta liable for costs they incurred to test
levels of atrazine and remove it from water.

They seek to recover costs of building, installing, operating and
maintaining granular activated carbon filters.

And, they seek punitive damages.

Mr. Tillery represents water providers in Coulterville,
Evansville, Farina, Gillespie, and Greenville, Illinois; Cameron,
Chariton, and Concordia, Missouri; Carbondale, Dodge City, Marion,
Oswego, and Plains, Kansas; Creston, Iowa; and Monroeville, Upper
Sandusky and Ottawa, Ohio.

He also represents Illinois-American, Iowa-American, Missouri-
American, and Ohio-American water companies.

Judge Gilbert dismissed claims of Indiana-American Water Company
and Jasper, Ind., finding their state law doesn't provide a
liability action for design defects.


UNITED STATES: Court Remands FCRA Class Action Suit for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States government
might have to pay attorneys for allegedly violating federal law by
printing the expiration date of their credit cards on a web page
confirming payment of e-filing fees, the Federal Circuit ruled.

Attorney James Bormes used his credit card to pay the e-filing fee
for a lawsuit he filed on behalf of one of his clients.  The
transaction was processed by the government's pay.gov system,
which sent him a confirmation web page allegedly containing his
credit card's expiration date.

Mr. Bormes filed a class action against the government, claiming
the government's printing of credit card expiration dates violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

A federal judge granted the government's motion to dismiss,
explaining that the FCRA did not waive the government's sovereign
immunity.

On appeal, the government urged the Federal Circuit to revive the
case and transfer it to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in Chicago, but the appeals court ruled that the
judge in Washington, D.C., had jurisdiction.

As the case was pending, the 7th Circuit ruled in another case
that a jurisdictional provision called the Little Tucker Act
waives sovereign immunity for FCRA claims.

"Because the Little Tucker Act operates to waive sovereign
immunity, the district court erred in dismissing Bormes' case
without considering whether the Little Tucker Act provided an
alternative basis for jurisdiction," Chief Judge Randall Rader
wrote.

Judge Rader concluded that the FCRA "is a money-mandating statute"
that supports federal jurisdiction.

The federal appeals court reinstated the case and sent it back to
the lower court for further review.

A copy of the Order in Bormes v. United States, No. 2009-1546
(Fed. Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/hCxeE

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          John G. Jacobs, Esq.
          THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD.
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-427-4000

The United States government is represented by:

          Henry C. Whitaker, Esq.
          Mark B. Stern, Esq.
          Timothy P. Mcilmail
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION


          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001


WALMART: Supreme Court Tackles Discrimination Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lee Ross, writing for Fox News, reports that part of the charm and
appeal of Walmart is the seeming ability of shoppers to find
anything they could possibly need inside one of its 4,300 stores
across the country.  What you can also find in each of those
stores is an employee who's part of a massive class action lawsuit
claiming the retail giant discriminates against women by
withholding promotions and pay raises.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court met in its closed-door conference to
discuss whether to take Walmart's appeal in a multi-billion dollar
case that could have a significant impact on the world's largest
private employer.

"I could see the men going forth and the women in the store stayed
in the basic positions they were always in," Betty Dukes told an
interviewer about what was happening to her at a Walmart in
Pittsburg, California.

To her surprise, Ms. Dukes wasn't the only female who felt like
she was passed over by the company.  Soon after contacting a
lawyer, Dukes, an ordained Baptist minister, joined five others as
lead plaintiffs in a nationwide class action lawsuit involving
current and former employees that's now the largest employment
class action case in history, covering more than 1.5 million women
and potentially leading to billions of dollars in damages.

Walmart denies any wrongdoing.

"We do not believe the claims alleged by the six individuals who
brought this suit are representative of the experiences of our
female associates," Jeff Gearhart, Executive Vice President and
General Counsel for Walmart said in a statement earlier this year.
"Walmart is an excellent place for women to work and fosters
female leadership among our associates and in the larger business
world."

One of the lawyers representing the women tells Fox News that the
evidence doesn't support Walmart's claims.  Joseph Sellers points
to years of anecdotal reports of women who were denied raises and
promotions.  He also points to Walmart's employment data showing
disparate treatment of women.  "That kind of evidence belies any
claim by Walmart that it's a great place to employ women," Sellers
said.

But the current case before the Supreme Court has little to do
with the women's discrimination claims under the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, rather it challenges their standing to form a class and sue.
So far, Walmart has been unsuccessful in its attempts to convince
lower courts that a class action suit of this size is
impermissible.  The store is now asking the high court to hear the
case and ultimately stop a trial from ever starting.

The company's legal team argues that further review by the
justices is necessary and claims that an adverse ruling from the
Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is not only incorrect but also
adds to longstanding uncertainty over the rules governing the
certification of class action suits.

Furthermore, Walmart's lawyers contend the Ninth Circuit's 6 to 5
ruling to permit a large group suit prevents the company from
challenging the claims made against it.  "An employer has a
statutory, as well as a constitutional, right to an individualized
defense," company lawyer Ted Boutrous wrote to the Supreme Court.

Walmart's brief quotes extensively from the five dissenters in the
Ninth Circuit's decision including Judge Sandra Ikuta, who
concluded that "any reasonable scrutiny of the evidence in this
case compels the conclusion that although the six plaintiffs here
may have individualized claims of discrimination, they cannot
represent a class of 1.5 million past and present employees."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Litigation Center each
submitted briefs supporting Walmart's position, expressing concern
that a ruling for the plaintiffs will open member businesses to
more costly and unfounded lawsuits.

In its reply brief to the high court, lawyers for the female
plaintiffs dispute Walmart's claim that the size of the certified
class is too large.  It is, they write, "a fact that is
indisputably true but legally irrelevant."  Sellers says Walmart's
claim that the class action prevents the company from defending
itself from specific individual claims flies in the face of
longstanding precedents.

The plaintiffs' lawyers argue that the Ninth Circuit's ruling left
key issues unresolved, making high court review at this point
premature.  In particular, they contend the lower court's ruling
leaves open the question of whether the class can seek punitive
damages and if former workers who left the company before the
lawsuit was filed can participate.  Until that matter is resolved,
they argue, the Supreme Court should deny review.

A decision on whether the justices will take the case could come
at any time but is not likely to happen before they return to the
bench on November 29.


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Deceptive Loan Modification Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Harwood Feffer LLP Tuesday disclosed that it filed
a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and its
loan servicing division, America's Servicing Company, for
fraudulent and deceptive practices related to loan modifications.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Forster, et al. v. Wells Fargo,
et al., Index. No. [pending assignment], alleges that ASC
improperly and unlawfully induced borrowers to default on their
mortgages by informing borrowers that loan modifications would not
be considered for those individuals who were current on their
payments.  By making loan default a pre-requisite for
modification, without regard to whether a borrower otherwise
qualified for a modification due to financial hardship, or ASC
caused borrowers to unnecessarily suffer ruined credit and
subjected them to significant fees, penalties and interest.

ASC is a loan servicer, meaning it does not have a beneficial
interest in the mortgage loans it oversees but rather is
contracted to administer and enforce the terms of the mortgage
agreement.  As a loan servicer, ASC generates a significant
portion of its revenue from fees, penalties, and interest
collected on the non-performing loans it services.  Consequently,
it is in ASC's financial interest to avoid, delay, and deny loan
modifications and to pursue foreclosures because doing so will
lead to increased revenue.

A copy of the complaint is available on the firm's Web site
http://www.hfesq.com/or can be obtained by contacting the firm.
If you believe you were a victim of ASC's mortgage loan
modification scheme (meaning you went into default based on ASC's
representation that you would not qualify for a loan modification
otherwise), you may be part of the proposed class.  For more
information on this case, you may contact Jeffrey M. Norton --
jnorton@hfesq.com -- or Roy Shimon -- rshimon@hfesq.com -- via
email or toll free at (877) 935-7400.

For over two decades, Harwood Feffer has been a nationally
recognized firm that specializes in complex, multi-party
litigation with an emphasis on securities, ERISA, consumer fraud,
products liability and civil rights litigation.  Harwood Feffer
serves as lead counsel in numerous class actions on behalf of
investors, employees, and consumers and has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars in recoveries for its clients.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Accused in Delaware of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors goosed the share
price of Wilmington Trust Corp. through false and misleading
statements, shareholders claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rooney v. Wilmington Trust Corporation,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (D. Del.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/22/SCA.pdf


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Posts $79.87MM Net Liability at Oct. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
posted a net asbestos liability of US$79,870,000 as of Oct. 3,
2010, and US$55,646,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 12, 2010, Leslie filed a voluntary petition under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware and, simultaneously, filed a
pre-negotiated plan of reorganization in an effort to permanently
resolve Leslie's asbestos liability.

Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Leslie,
which the Company acquired in 1989, had been, up to the date of
filing of the Bankruptcy Petition, and may continue to be named as
a defendant in product liability actions brought on behalf of
individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to
airborne asbestos fibers.  In some instances, the Company also has
been named individually and/or as alleged successor in interest in
these cases.

At the Filing Date, Leslie was a named defendant in about 1,340
active, unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California,
Texas, New York, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Rhode Island,
Illinois and 23 other states.  About 713 of these claims involve
claimants allegedly suffering from (or the estates of decedents
who allegedly died from) mesothelioma.  In addition to these
claims, Leslie remained a named defendant in about 69 unresolved
asbestos-related claims filed in Mississippi.

During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two verdicts
that, if allowed to stand, would have resulted in a liability to
Leslie of about US$3.8 million.  Although Leslie accrued a
liability during 2007 for each of these verdicts, both verdicts
were appealed and, during November 2009, the California Court of
Appeals issued its final ruling reversing one of the two judgments
against Leslie.

As a result of this ruling, during the fourth quarter of fiscal
2009, the Company reduced the accrued liability associated with
Leslie's asbestos claims by US$1.3 million.  After receiving a
favorable ruling from the appellate court on the second adverse
verdict (which initially resulted in a US$2.5 million award
against Leslie), Leslie agreed to a reduced award of about
US$600,000.

On July 14, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a temporary
restraining order that bars the prosecution or commencement of
claims against the Company or Watts arising from Leslie's alleged
asbestos liabilities, and, on Aug. 9, 2010, the Court granted
Leslie's request for a preliminary injunction that bars the
prosecution or commencement of such claims until final approval of
the Reorganization Plan, which would permanently channel such
claims to the Trust.

The Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 19, 2010, approved Leslie's motions
regarding procedures for voting on the proposed Plan and approved
the form of a Disclosure Statement which Leslie then sent to the
holders of claims against Leslie to enable them to vote on the
proposed Plan.

On Oct. 8, 2010, the balloting agent certified to the Bankruptcy
Court that the requisite approval from claimants had been
received.  The Bankruptcy Court held hearings on confirmation of
the Reorganization Plan on Oct. 26-27, 2010.  At the Confirmation
Hearings, certain of Leslie's insurers sought to object to the
Reorganization Plan's confirmation.

The Bankruptcy Court, however, determined that the terms of the
Reorganization Plan are neutral to the rights of such insurers and
thus ruled that the insurers did not have standing to raise
objections to confirmation.  Because Leslie previously had
resolved all of the other objections to confirmation of the
Reorganization Plan, the Confirmation Hearings proceeded in an
uncontested manner, and, on Oct. 28, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order confirming the Reorganization Plan.

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

On Oct. 29, 2010, one of the insurers did file a notice of appeal
and the Company anticipates that one or more other insurers will
join in such an appeal.

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: Leslie Controls Has 1,340 Open Cases at Oct. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
faced 1,340 open asbestos-related cases for the three and nine
months ended Oct. 3, 2009.

During the three months ended Oct. 3, 2010, Leslie posted 132
cases filed, six cases resolved and dismissed, and 713 open
mesothelioma cases.

CIRCOR International 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: CIRCOR Posts $1.7MM Remaining Leslie Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., as of Oct.3, 2010, said it believes
that the aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash basis) remaining
on subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of asbestos-
related insurance was about US$1.7 million.

From a financial statement perspective, however, after giving
effect to the Company's accrual for the estimated indemnity cost
of resolving pending claims, Leslie recorded the maximum amount of
available primary layer insurance as of September 2008.

As a result, asbestos related indemnity costs from that point
forward were no longer partially offset by a corresponding
insurance recovery.  However, defense costs, which were recognized
as incurred, continued to be and, but for filing of the Bankruptcy
Petition, would continue to be partially offset by a 36%
contribution from Leslie's remaining primary layer insurance
carrier until such time as the aggregate amount of indemnity
claims paid out (on a cash basis) by the remaining primary layer
insurance carrier exceeded policy limits.

CIRCOR International 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: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Spence, Hoke
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims are pending against two
of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries -- Spence, the stock
of which the Company acquired in 1984; and Hoke, the stock of
which the Company acquired in 1998.

No other asbestos matters related to Spence and Hoke were
disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

CIRCOR International 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: Burlington Northern Still Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC continues to be party to a
number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees
who may have been exposed to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.  However,
other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive
component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until
they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by 1985.

During the third quarters of 2010 and 2009, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
the Company to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable.  In the third quarters of 2010 and 2009, management
determined that the liability remained appropriate and no change
was recorded.  The Company plans to update its study again in the
third quarter of 2011.

Based on the Company's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050.

The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing
period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed
population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985),
which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about
which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age,
hire date and occupation) derived from industry or Company-
specific data that was the basis for the study.

The Company projects that about 55%, 75% and 90% of the future
unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15
and 25 years, respectively.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe,
LLC is a holding company that conducts no operating activities and
owns no significant assets other than through its interests in its
subsidiaries.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company is engaged
primarily in the freight rail transportation business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burik Case Ongoing v. Vector Group in Md. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. continues to be involved in the asbestos-related
lawsuit styled Burik, et al. v. John-Crane Houdaille, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 24-X-08-000429, filed in Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City on June 9, 2010.

Plaintiff is suing individually and as personal representative of
the estate of a deceased smoker.  Plaintiff seeks damages
allegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos and
cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer
defendants and certain tobacco company defendants, including
Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

The defendants, including Liggett, filed a motion to dismiss in
July 2010.  Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss on July 29, 2010.  The motions are pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company
that is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kraska Case v. Vector Group Ongoing in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. is involved in the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled Kraska, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. et al., Case
No. 24X08000209, filed in Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City
on Aug. 2, 2010.

Plaintiff is suing individually and as personal representative of
the estate of a deceased smoker.  Plaintiff seeks damages
allegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos and
cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer
defendants and certain tobacco company defendants, including
Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
10/08/10. The motion is pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company
that is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Love Action v. Vector Group Ongoing in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. is involved in the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled Love, et al. v. John-Crane Houdaille, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-X-08-000120, filed in Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City
on June 1, 2010.

Plaintiff and his wife seek damages allegedly caused by exposure
to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos
manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants,
including Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in July 2010.  Plaintiffs
filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on July 29,
2010.  The motions are pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company
that is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schoppert Action v. Vector Ongoing in Md. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. is involved in an asbestos-related lawsuit
styled Schoppert, et al., v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 24-X-07-000300, filed in Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City on Feb. 19, 2010.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife.  Plaintiffs seek damages
allegedly caused to Leon D. Schoppert by exposure to asbestos and
cigarette smoke, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer
defendants and certain tobacco company defendants, including
Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
Aug. 18, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to
Liggett's Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 20, 2010.

The motions are pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company
that is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Action Pending v. Vector in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. is involved in an asbestos-related lawsuit
styled Parsons, et al. v. A C & S Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-388,
filed in Circuit Court, West Virginia, Kanawha County on April 9,
1998.

This personal injury class action is brought on behalf of
plaintiff's decedent and all West Virginia residents who allegedly
have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.

The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy
petitions filed by three defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company
that is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Still Party to Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies in recent years, Precision
Casptparts Corp. is a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the
workplace, including asbestos.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp.
manufactures complex metal components and products, provides high-
quality investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener
systems for critical aerospace and industrial gas turbine
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in
numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
about 2,190 individual claimants as of Sept. 30, 2010, down from
about 2,510 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31,
2009.

The majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently
pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's
mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and
other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace
exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well
as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at
Company premises.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Display and
Graphics; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $33MM Aearo Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of Sept. 30, 2010, 3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies
subsidiary, has recorded US$33 million as an estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo.  Aearo manufactures
and sells various products, including personal protection
equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain
respiratory protection products.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, sometimes
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and
judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among
Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of
Warner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group).

Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety"
brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical
Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual
plaintiff.

Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an
agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.
This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot an
annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and
liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-
related product liability claims for respirators manufactured
prior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearo
and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the
alleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.

With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other
occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee.  Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Display and
Graphics; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $124MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company recorded US$124 million for respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$138 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded US$119 million for respirator mask/asbestos
insurance receivables as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$143
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

As a result of the greater cost of resolving claims of persons
with malignant conditions, as of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company
increased its reserves for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by
US$5 million and increased its receivables for insurance
recoveries by US$1 million related to litigation.

As a result of settlements reached with its insurers (primarily in
the first quarter of 2010), the Company was paid about US$25
million for the first nine months of 2010 in connection with the
respirator mask/asbestos receivable.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Display and
Graphics; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Party to Continental Casualty Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues be involved in an asbestos-related insurance
lawsuit filed on behalf of Continental Casualty and Continental
Insurance Co.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgment
action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental
Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part of the
Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator
mask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of a US$119 million
insurance recovery receivable.  The action, pending in the
District Court in Ramsey County, Minn., seeks declaratory judgment
regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.

The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers.  This action is similar in nature to an action
filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which
ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of
2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names
some additional insurers and deletes others.  Several of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the
Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit.

Three additional insurers have recently been or are being added as
parties to the case.  The case remains in its early stages with a
trial scheduled to begin in June 2012.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Display and
Graphics; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Reserves $277,000 for Gradall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in New
Philadelphia, Ohio, which is expected to be abated over time.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had an environmental reserve in the
amount of US$1,602,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
facility.

Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior to
the acquisition are in process of remediation with a remaining
reserve balance of US$137,000.

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

Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may have
to be remediated over time.  Management has made its best estimate
of the cost to remediate these environmental issues.

Headquartered in Seguin, Tex., Alamo Group Inc. designs,
manufactures, distributes and services high quality equipment for
right-of-way maintenance and agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Posts $8.7MM Recoverables at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s ceded asbestos paid and unpaid
recoverables were US$8.7 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$8.9 million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Of such amounts at Sept. 30, 2010, about US$4.3 million was due
from Resolute Management Services Limited.

Headquartered in Rye Brook, N.Y., The Navigators Group, Inc. is an
international insurance company focusing on specialty products for
niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market.  Its
largest product line and most long-standing area of specialization
is ocean marine insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Has $3.133BB Gross Liability at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability for
unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$3.133 billion
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$3.070 billion during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense was US$2.977 billion during the six
months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$3.242 billion during
the six months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 27, 2010)

The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expense was US$1.131 billion during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$1.128 billion during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The gross IBNR (incurred but not reported) asbestos liability was
US$2.133 billion during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with US$2.101 billion during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

The net IBNR asbestos liability was US$885 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$933 million during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc.
provides insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to
commercial, institutional, and individual customers in the United
States.  Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life
insurance and retirement services, asset management, and financial
services (including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in more
than 120 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Faces 4,965 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. recorded 4,965 asbestos claims
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 5,483
claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company recorded 4,996 asbestos claims during the six months
ended June 30, 2010, compared with 5,485 during the six months
ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company reported
322 claims opened, 215 claims settled, and 559 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved.  During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009,
the Company reported 465 claims opened, 205 claims settled, and
602 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved.

The Company's gross asbestos survival ratio was 4.9 years during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 4.5 years
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.  The Company's net
survival ratio was 4.6 years during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2010, compared with 3.6 years during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc.
provides insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to
commercial, institutional, and individual customers in the United
States.  Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life
insurance and retirement services, asset management, and financial
services (including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in more
than 120 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel, Units Still Party to Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. and its operations may be
parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations, and
proceedings, including product liability, personal injury,
asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,
environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment
matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., FutureFuel Corp. manufactures
biodiesel and other biofuels.  However, its core business is
specialty chemicals, which include herbicides, detergent
additives, colorants, photographic and imaging chemicals, and food
additives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Continues to Be Subject to A&E Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited anticipates that it will continue to be
subject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary
course of business, including litigation generally related to the
scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental
claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Enstar Group Limited acquires
and manages insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and
portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and
to provide management, consulting and other services to the
insurance and reinsurance industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Corp. Has 31,472 Cases at Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation faced 31,472 asbestos-related cases as
of Oct. 1, 2010, of which about 591 were non-maritime cases and
30,881 were maritime cases.

As of July 2, 2010, the Company was a defendant in 32,727 asbestos
cases, of which 578 were non-maritime cases and 32,149 were
maritime cases.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the
United States.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company.

As of Oct. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had accrued, on
a gross basis, about US$5.1 million and had recovered about
US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits.

Headquartered in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable Corporation
develops, designs, manufactures, installs, markets and distributes
copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products.  The
Company's operations are divided into three reportable segments:
North America, Europe and Mediterranean and Rest of World.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, California Water Service Group has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been dismissed without prejudice in several of
these cases.  In other cases, the Company's contractors and
insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on
the Company's financial statements.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. Arabian American Filed Sept. 14 in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian American Development Company, on Sept. 14, 2010, the
Company received notice of an asbestos lawsuit filed in Jefferson
County, Tex., according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are about 44 defendants named in the suit.

On Oct. 18, 2010, the Company received notice of another lawsuit
filed in Jefferson County, Tex.  The suit alleges that the
plaintiff became ill from benzene exposure during his employment
from 1970 to 2008 with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a
customer of South Hampton.  There are seven defendants named in
the suit.

Headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex., Arabian American Development
Company, through its U.S. subsidiary American Shield Refining,
operates a specialty petrochemical product refinery (South
Hampton) that primarily produces high-purity solvents used in the
plastics and foam industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Reserves $865MM for Carolinas at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation says amounts recognized as asbestos-
related reserves related to subsidiary Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
totaled US$865 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$980 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

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

As of Sept. 30, 2010, there were 322 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$79
million, and 156 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to US$39 million.

These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy
Carolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current and
future asbestos claims through 2030.  Management said it believes
that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against
Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of
US$476 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the
self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second
quarter of 2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance
carrier.

The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance
recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is
US$1.005 billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of US$850 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$984 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 related to this policy are
classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is an
energy company primarily located in the Americas.  The Company
operates in the United States primarily through its direct and
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,
and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South America and
Central America through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Ohio Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., has
been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to
asbestos at its electric generating stations, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning
uncertainties, such as:

-- The number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos
   during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Ohio
   generating plants;

-- The possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed
   workers, and

-- The potential settlement costs without federal or other
   legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy
   Ohio estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure
   in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is
   not material.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is an
energy company primarily located in the Americas.  The Company
operates in the United States primarily through its direct and
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,
and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South America and
Central America through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Involved in Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's affiliate, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.,
has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related
to asbestos at its electric generating stations, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning
uncertainties, such as:

-- The number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos
   during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana
   generating plants;

-- The possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed
   workers, and

-- The potential settlement costs without federal or other
   legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy
   Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible
   exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable
   future is not material.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is an
energy company primarily located in the Americas.  The Company
operates in the United States primarily through its direct and
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,
and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South America and
Central America through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has $113.8MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross asbestos and
environmental loss reserves amounted to US$113.8 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$130 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's gross loss reserves for A&E matters were US$109.3
million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$152.3 million as of
June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2010)

The Company's net A&E loss reserves amounted to US$85.7 million as
of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$99.6 million as of Sept. 30,
2009.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company concluded its annual
review of A&E liability reserves.  As a result, the Company
strengthened asbestos reserves by US$9.5 million.

The change was driven by increased severity estimates for asbestos
claims primarily pertaining to the Company's assumed reinsurance
business.

Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International
Holdings, Ltd. is primarily engaged in writing property and
casualty insurance and reinsurance.  The Company has four ongoing
reporting segments: Excess and Surplus Lines, Commercial
Specialty, Reinsurance and International Specialty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Posts $350MM Sept. 30 Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
At Sept. 30, 2010, American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and
casualty group's asbestos and environmental reserves were US$350
million, net of reinsurance recoverable, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's three year survival ratio for
property and casualty exposures was 9.6 times paid losses for the
asbestos reserves and 8.3 times paid losses for the total A&E
reserves.  These ratios compare favorably with industry data
published by Conning Research and Consulting, Inc. in May 2010,
which indicate that industry survival ratios were 8.2 for asbestos
and 7.7 for total industry A&E reserves at Dec. 31, 2009.

The survival ratio, which is often used by industry analysts to
compare A&E reserves strength across companies, is a measure of
the number of years that it would take to pay the amount of the
current reserves based on the average paid losses over the
preceding three years.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group, Inc.,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in property and casualty
insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for
businesses and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed and
variable annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welshpool Co. Penalized for Safety Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of a Welshpool-based window and conservatory
installation company has been fined for failing to protect its
workers from exposure to asbestos, according to a Health and
Safety Press release dated Nov. 19, 2010.

Four employees were exposed while removing soffits on a property
at Chirbury Gate, Montgomery, Powys, Wales, between June 16, 2009
and June 17, 2009.

An HSE investigation found that 54-year-old Philip Leslie Davies,
trading as Meadow View Windows and Conservatories, had failed to
take effective measures to prevent or reduce his employees being
exposed to the potentially deadly substance.

Mr. Davies, of Shrewsbury, admitted exposing employees to
asbestos, failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient
assessment, and failing to ensure adequate information,
instruction and training was provided to employees.

Mr. Davies was charged with breaching of Regulations 5, 10(1) and
11(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2006.  He
was fined a total of GBP3,000 (GBP1,000 for each charge) and
ordered to pay costs of GBP1,615 at Welshpool Magistrates Court on
Nov. 19, 2010.

HSE inspector Chris Wilcox said, "Four of Mr. Davies' employees
were exposed to asbestos in circumstances that were wholly
avoidable.  They now have to live with the fear of becoming ill
with a life-threatening lung disease.

"Those working in the roofline products industry must check for
the presence of asbestos and be fully aware of the legal
requirements for working with asbestos-containing materials."

The court also ordered the defendant to pay a separate GBP15
victim surcharge, the proceeds of which will be spent on services
for victims and witnesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Opposition Pledges A$5.5MM for Abatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
If elected, the New South Wales Opposition has pledged to spend
A$5.5 million to remediate the Woodsreef mine, an open-cut
asbestos mine in Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia, ABC News
reports.

In 1983, the mine ceased operation and has been described as an
environmental disaster.  It is the only known asbestos mine site
in New South Wales that has not been remediated.

Ombudsman Bruce Barbour released a report "Responding to the
Asbestos Problem: The need for significant reform in NSW" in which
he was scathing about the lack of action at the Woodsreef site.
His report says friable asbestos is scattered across most of the
400-hectare site.

Mr. Barbour is also worried about mounds of asbestos tailings as
high as 75 meters as well as an eight-storey derelict building
that is contaminated.  He noted that in 2009 the Department of
Industry and Investment submitted an A$5.5 million proposal to
carry out preliminary remediation works on the mine site but the
Government did not provide funding.

One of the recommendations Mr. Barbour makes in his report is that
the money be allocated for the remediation works.  The work would
involve removing derelict buildings and equipment, closing a
public road which runs through the site and properly securing the
area to stop access.

On Nov. 17, 2010, Premier Kristina Keneally said she was giving
"serious consideration" to the Ombudsman's concerns.

The Government estimates a complete remediation of the site would
cost about A$100 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Unions Move to Upgrade Hazard Warning
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of unions in Tasmania, Australia, wants the safety warning
about asbestos on building and demolition sites upgraded, ABC News
reports.

The policy from the Building and Construction Industry Group of
Unions means all asbestos would have to be removed before any work
can start.

There are three danger categories, with red being the highest and
indicating materials that are currently dangerous or posing an
immediate health risk.

Unions Tasmania's Kevin Harkins says asbestos can easily go from a
green or amber rating to red, without workers knowing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rolls-Royce Worker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard that the
death of Harry Rigby, an engineer who had worked for Rolls-Royce,
was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Rigby recalled blowing asbestos dust from his overalls while
working in the 1950s at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, England, before
he moved to Derby.

In a statement, Mr. Rigby recalled seeing blue, white and brown
asbestos in the air while he worked close to asbestos-lagged
pipes.  He started to feel breathless in early 2008, struggling to
tend to his garden and do odd jobs around the house.

Mr. Rigby was diagnosed with pleural plaques in October 2008 and
died last October 2009 at the age of 71 in the Royal Derby
Hospital.

In 2008, as part of a successful compensation claim before his
death, Mr. Rigby was examined by respiratory physician Dr. David
Baldwin.

Dr. Ivan Robinson, the pathologist who carried out Mr. Rigby's
post-mortem examination, said asbestos fiber in his lungs made
them more than twice the weight of normal, healthy lungs.  He gave
the cause of death as pulmonary fibrosis.

Paul McCandless, assistant deputy coroner, returned a verdict that
Mr. Rigby died as a result of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchcombe Lorry Driver's Death Due to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Arthur Worthington, a retired
lorry driver from Winchcombe, England, who died at the age of 85,
was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, this is
Gloucestershire reports.

Mr. Worthington died at Cheltenham General Hospital after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma in early 2009.  His son, Brian
Worthington, said his father spent most of his life as a lorry
driver but had worked for a company called AG Curtis as a plumber
earlier in his life.

At that job, Mr. Worthington had mixed up white powder to make
lagging for pipes.  He did not know it then, but it was almost
certainly asbestos, Mr. Worthington's son said.

Brian Worthington added, "He was admitted to Cheltenham hospital
on Dec. 29, 2009, and I went to visit him on Jan. 1, but I arrived
20 minutes after he had died."

Mr. Worthington's GP, Dr. Tracy Jackson, said until 2008 he had
been a very fit man with an excellent quality of life.

Respiratory consultant, Dr. Ian Mortimore, said Mr. Worthington
had been admitted with a swelling in the leg which was thought to
be caused by a thrombosis.  He said, "This later appeared not to
be thrombosis but part of the general debility arising from the
mesothelioma."

Gloucestershire coroner, Alan Crickmore, was told a postmortem
examination had shown the existence of plural plaques, which were
a strong indicator of asbestos exposure.

Mr. Worthington's lungs showed a low count of asbestos fibers, but
pathologist Dr. Keith McCarthy said this was in keeping with the
development of mesothelioma.

Summing up, Mr. Crickmore said Mr. Worthington had been so ill
when he got to hospital he was unable to get out of bed.  He
recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tucker Lawsuit v. 37 Firms Filed Nov. 5 in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur and Joan Tucker, a couple from Massachusetts, on Nov. 5,
2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 37 defendant
corporations in St. Clair County, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair
Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Tucker worked as a machinist mate
for the U.S. Navy from 1962 until 1965, as a mechanic at
Thurston's Garage from 1965 until 1968, as a mechanic at Esso
Station from 1968 until 1972, as a machinist at Walbar from 1967
until 1968 and as a shadetree mechanic from the 1950s until the
1970s.

In their six-count complaint, the Tuckers seek a judgment of more
than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants
for their behavior and punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$100,000, plus other relief the court deems just.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Tuckers.  Erik Kars, Esq.,
and Matthew T. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von Oiste in Houston
will serve of counsel in Case No. 10-L-582.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riggleman Action Filed v. CSX in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------
Christa J. Pearce-Braithwaite, on behalf of her father Charles
William Riggleman, on Nov. 3, 2010, filed a lawsuit involving
asbestos against CSX Transportation in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Riggleman died of lung cancer.  Mrs.
Pearce-Braithwaite claims Mr. Riggleman was an employee of the
railroad and contracted occupational diseases within the scope of
that employment.

Mr. Riggleman was required to work with and near toxic and harmful
dust, including asbestos and materials containing asbestos, fumes
and other products, according to the suit.

Mrs. Pearce-Braithwaite seeks compensatory damages.  She is being
represented by James A. McKowen, Esq., and David P. Pavlik, Esq.

Case No. 10-C-1965 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chenoweth Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Chenoweth, on behalf of her late husband Dwain L.
Chenoweth, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 72 defendant
corporations on Oct. 25, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Chenoweth was diagnosed with lung
cancer on April 13, 2010 and died July 18, 2010.

Mrs. Chenoweth claims the defendants caused Mr. Chenoweth's lung
cancer and death by exposing him to asbestos and asbestos fibers
during his career at Union Carbide Corporation from 1959 until
1999.  According to the suit, he also smoked one-half to one pack
of cigarettes per day from 1856 until 1983, but then quit.

Mrs. Chenoweth seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
She is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Carrie L.
Newton, Esq.

Case No. 10-C-1915 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henthorn's Action v. 95 Firms Filed on Oct. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Henthorn I and wife Eva Louise Henthorn, a couple from
New Martinsville, W.Va., on Oct. 22, 2010, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 95 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit states Mr. Henthorn was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  He
was employed at the PPG Natrium Plant in New Martinsville from
1959 until 1977.

The Henthorns seek compensatory and punitive damages.  They are
being represented by Brian A. Prim, Esq.

Case No. 10-C-1894 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edwards Case v. 81 Firms Filed Nov. 5 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled James R. Edwards and Norma Edwards vs.
A.W. Chesterton Company; Amchem Products, Inc.; Anchor Packing; et
al was filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on Nov. 5, 2010, The
West Virginia Record reports.

During the course of his employment with Union Carbide
Corporation, Mr. Edwards was exposed to various types of asbestos
products.  He claims the 81 defendants manufactured, assembled,
supplied, distributed and/or sold the products.  He was diagnosed
with mesothelioma.

The Edwards couple seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents the Edwards couple.

Case No. 10-C-1996 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Allen County Bldg. to Cost Up to $2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of renovating the City-County Building in Fort Wayne,
Allen County, Ind., could exceed estimates by US$1 million to
US$2 million, The News-Sentinel reports.

County Council has agreed to spend about US$3 million on the
project, but Larry Brown, Allen County Council member, said the
containment, removal and replacement of asbestos could add "$1
million to US$2 million" to the price.

The presence of asbestos in the nine-story building is hardly a
secret.  In 1996, for example, The News-Sentinel reported that the
removal of the hazardous material during renovations temporarily
forced some offices to move.

The previous year it was reported that the Indiana Occupational
Health and Safety Administration had inspected the building after
telephone crews discovered asbestos falling from a ceiling.

And the year before that, the state Department of Health had
tested the building's air and declared it asbestos-free after
other workers discovered the material.

Asbestos-related work could begin early in 2011 with renovation
starting in the spring.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taylor Case v. 80 Firms Filed Oct. 25 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benny Charles Taylor of Milledgeville, Ga., and his wife,
Dorril J. Taylor, on Oct. 25, 2010, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 80 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, on July 9, 2009, Mr. Taylor was diagnosed
with lung cancer.  He was employed by Delta Construction, J.B.
Stevens, CC Taylor & Son and J.A. Jones Construction Company from
1955 until 2000, which caused him to be exposed to asbestos
products of the defendants.

The Taylors seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rhinehart, Esq., represent
them.

Case No. 10-C-1916 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Behringer Harvard Posts $8.9MM ARO at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The balance of Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc.'s asset retirement
obligations was about US$8.9 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, and
US$9.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company records the fair value of any conditional asset
retirement obligations if they can be reasonably estimated.  As
part of the anticipated renovation of acquired properties, the
Company will incur costs for the abatement of regulated materials,
primarily asbestos-containing materials, as required under
environmental regulations.

The Company's estimate of the fair value of the liabilities is
based on future anticipated costs to be incurred for the legal
removal or remediation of the regulated materials.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc.
15601 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Addison, Tex. 75001
Phone No.: (866) 655-1605

Description:
The Company operates institutional quality real estate.  As of
Sept. 30, 2010, the Company owned interests in 70 office
properties located in 23 states and the District of Columbia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Accrues $2.1MM Obligations at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation's accruals for estimated retirement
obligations were about US$2.1 million at Sept. 30, 2010, and
US$1.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations.
The asset retirement obligations relate primarily to the removal
of asbestos and contaminated soil during development or
redevelopment of the properties as well as the estimated equipment
removal costs upon termination of a certain lease where the
Company is the lessee.


COMPANY PROFILE:

CoreSite Realty Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 800
Denver, Colo. 80265
Phone No.: (866) 777-2673

Description:
The Company was organized on Feb. 17, 2010 and is a fully
integrated, self-administered, and self-managed real estate
investment trust (REIT).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Files Appeal on Quigley Action Oct. 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in October 2010, filed a notice of appeal and motion
for leave to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision denying
confirmation of subsidiary Quigley Company, Inc.'s plan of
reorganization.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect to
Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded in
December 2009.  Briefing on the legal issues related to the
confirmation hearing concluded in February 2010.

In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined to confirm the
amended reorganization plan.  The Company and Quigley are seeking
to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the amended
reorganization plan and currently intend to submit a revised plan
for consideration by the court.  There is no assurance that such a
revised plan will be submitted or that, if submitted, it will be
approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

As a result, the Company has taken an additional charge for this
matter of US$701 million (pre-tax) in the third quarter of 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $86MM for Claims at Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s long-term reserve for asbestos claims amounted
to US$86 million as of both Oct. 2, 2010 and March 31, 2010,
according to a Company press release dated Nov. 10, 2010.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was US$86
million as of both Oct. 2, 2010 and March 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company
of Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries serve the Company's two main
segments: Process Motion Control and Water Management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 876 Claims in W.Va. at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging exposure
to asbestos was 876 in West Virginia, nine in Pennsylvania and one
in Illinois as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's total number of claims alleging exposure to
asbestos, as of June 30, 2010, was 868 in West Virginia and eight
in Pennsylvania.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The Distribution Companies - Monongahela Power Company, The
Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company - have been
named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in
pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale
or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company.
These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities.

The Company's historical operations were insured by various
foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.
Certain insurers have contested their obligations to pay for the
future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos
suits.

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

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

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

-- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Hartford Accident &
   Indemnity Company, Civil Action No. 10-CV-3142 WY (U.S.
   District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

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

Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an
integrated energy business that owns and operates electric
generation facilities primarily in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and
Maryland.  The Company manages its operations through two business
segments: Merchant Generation and Regulated Operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to claims and
litigation related to product liability claims, including claims
related to the Company's current products and asbestos-related
claims concerning premises and historic products of its corporate
affiliates and predecessors.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Middlebury, Conn., Chemtura Corporation delivers
innovative, application-focused specialty chemical and consumer
product offerings.  The Company operates in various end-use
industries, including automotive, transportation, construction,
packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-
durable goods, electronics, and pool and spa chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Remains Party to Sealed Air Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA continues to be subject to
litigation with Sealed Air Corporation to confirm entitlement to
indemnification from Sealed Air for losses and expenses incurred
by the Company on pre-Merger tax liabilities and Merger-related
claims.

The Company was originally formed as a result of a series of
transactions it completed under the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between W. R.
Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE (Merger).

At the time of the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W. R. Grace
& Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilities
arising out of product-liability related litigation (including
asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims
unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), which was Grace's
dialysis business prior to the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to
indemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of
Grace, whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations.

Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace and
FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace & Co.-
Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the
Grace bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings,
alleging that the Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated the
uniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a conspiracy.

All such cases have been stayed and transferred to or are pending
before the U.S. District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate and
Grace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings
for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and tax claims
against it and other claims related to the Company that arise out
of the bankruptcy of Grace.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended (Settlement
Agreement), fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on
behalf of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and
the Company will receive protection against existing and potential
future Grace related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and
asbestos claims, and indemnification against income tax claims
related to the non-NMC members of the Grace consolidated tax group
upon confirmation of a Grace bankruptcy reorganization plan that
contains such provisions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total of
US$115 million without interest to the Grace Bankruptcy estate, or
as otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation.  No
admission of liability has been or will be made. The Settlement
Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District Court.

Subsequent to the Merger, Grace was involved in a multi-step
transaction involving Sealed Air Corporation (f/k/a Grace Holding,
Inc.).

Under the Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that
satisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation, this
litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Headquartered in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG &
Co. KGaA is a dialysis provider.  Its staff treats about 190,000
patients a year at some 2,500 dialysis clinics worldwide, 1,700 of
which are based in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claims are still pending against Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of its
affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),
and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the
Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend itself,
including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of
which confirmed Wabtec's position that it did not assume any
asbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec
assets.

Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) provides equipment and
services for the global rail industry.  In 2009, the Company
had sales of about US$1.4 billion and net income of about
US$115.1 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Has Up to $20MM Coverage for A&E Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million
per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment
Trust is an REIT that focuses on retail shopping malls and strip
and power centers located in the eastern half of the United
States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region.  As of Sept. 30,
2010, the Company's portfolio consisted of 49 properties in 13
states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp., Units Face 60 Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 60 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of June 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company and its subsidiaries faced 71 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3,
2010)

The Company and its units: Union Electric Company (UE), Central
Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating
Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) and
Illinois Power Company (IP) have been named, along with numerous
other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs
claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure.  Most
cases have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with as
many as 212 parties named in some pending cases and as few as two
in others.  However, in the cases that were pending as of Sept.
30, 2010, the average number of parties was 76.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric generating
plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants
are now owned by AERG.  Most of IP's plants were transferred to a
former parent subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP.

As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO
generating plants, CIPS and CILCO contractually agreed to
indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated
with asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer.

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

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had US$11 million, UE had
US$4 million, CIPS had US$1 million, Genco had none, CILCO had
US$2 million and IP had US$4 million in liabilities recorded to
represent their best estimate of their obligations related to
asbestos claims.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation distributes
electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost one
million customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility
subsidiaries.  The Company has a generating capacity of more than
16,500 MW.  The Company also operates a nuclear power facility,
three hydroelectric plants, and several turbine combustion
facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Posts $300,000 CAROs at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc.'s liability in its condensed
consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset retirement
obligations was US$300,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2009.

The Company records a liability for a conditional asset retirement
obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an asset
retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of
settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be
within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation
can be reasonably estimated.

Depending on the age of the construction, certain properties in
the Company's portfolio may contain non-friable asbestos.  If
these properties undergo major renovations or are demolished,
certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the
manner in which the asbestos, if present, must be handled and
disposed.

Based on its evaluation of the physical condition and attributes
of certain of its properties acquired in the Transactions, the
Company recorded conditional asset retirement obligations related
to asbestos removal.

The accretion expense for the three and nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009 was not significant.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc.
10188 Telesis Court
Suite 222
San Diego, Calif.
92121
Phone No.: (858) 882-9500

Description:
The Company owns, acquires and operates primarily institutional-
quality office properties principally in selected long-term growth
markets in California and Hawaii.  It operates as a real estate
investment trust (REIT) for federal income tax purposes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Still Party to Claims in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since August 2004, Parker Drilling Company, particularly certain
of its subsidiaries, faced several asbestos complaints in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred
persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named
defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

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

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in
which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of
action allegedly accrued.  Subsequent to the filing of amended
complaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants in
filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs
have an employment relationship with which defendant, including
whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship with
subsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date,
about 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its
affiliates as a defendant.  One of the 16 plaintiffs' cases was
transferred to the federal multi-district litigation and was
administratively dismissed.

Of the remaining cases, discovery is proceeding in groups of 60
and none of the 15 plaintiff complaints naming the Company are
included in the first 60 (Group I).  Selection of Discovery Group
II was completed on April 21, 2008, and the Company was named in
one suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
US$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a company
Parker Drilling acquired in 1996.  No trial date has been set for
this plaintiff.

Headquartered in Houston, Parker Drilling Company provides
contract drilling and drilling-related services based on extensive
experience and expertise in drilling geologically difficult wells
and in managing the logistical and technological challenges of
operating in remote, harsh and ecologically sensitive areas.  At
Sept. 30, 2010, its marketable rig fleet was comprised of 43 rigs
which operate in North and South America, North Africa, Central
Asia and Asia Pacific regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Continues to be Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is still routinely subject to claims related to its
current services and operations, and asbestos-related claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate.

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

Headquartered in Rolling Meadows, Ill., MYR Group Inc. performs
construction services in two business segments: Transmission and
Distribution and Commercial and Industrial.  T&D customers include
electric utilities, cooperatives and municipalities nationwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 38 Exposure Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 38 asbestos-related lawsuits at Sept. 30, 2010 in
which Noble Corporation is one of many defendants, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company said that, at June 30, 2010, there were about 39
asbestos lawsuits in which it is one of many defendants.  (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to the Company's operations in which the claimants
seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal
injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states
of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Headquartered in Baar, Switzerland, Noble Corporation is an
offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.  The
Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62
offshore drilling units located worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is, and is likely to continue to be involved in
a number of legal proceedings, government investigations, and
claims that are asbestos-related.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Mentor, Ohio, STERIS Corporation provides
infection prevention and surgical products and services, focused
primarily on the critical markets of healthcare, pharmaceutical
and research.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire & Cable Faces Actions in 4 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Illinois alleging that
certain electrical wire and cable which may have contained
asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this
electrical wire and cable.

These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
electrical wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in
fact, distributed the electrical wire and cable alleged to have
caused any injuries.

The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied
to these claims.  To date, all costs associated with these claims
have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all
defense of these claims has been handled by the applicable
insurance companies.

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

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

Headquartered in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Company, through
its wholly owned subsidiaries, distributes wire and cable and
related hardware to the U.S. industrial distribution market
through locations in 12 states throughout the United States.  The
Company has no other business activity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Bucyrus Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. has been named as a co-defendant in
numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy year
in question.  At the time a liability associated with a case
becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company
accrues for the liability by a charge to earnings.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Involved in Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is still involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

                             *********

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.  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  * * *