CAR_Public/101203.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 239

                             Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: 1999 Delaware Lawsuit Concluded
ALLIANZ LIFE: Sued for Cheating Buyers of Equity Index Annuities
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motions to Certify Class Actions Still Pending
ART TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
BALDWIN MUTUAL: Alabama High Court Reverses Certification Order

BAYER PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Birth Control Pills
BOTTOMLINE TECH: Appeal on Suit Settlement Remains Pending
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Calif. Class Action Suit Still Pending
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota
CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Amendment Gets Preliminary Approval

CONSOL GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Drilling Royalties
EL PASO CORP: Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal Remains Pending
ERNST & YOUNG: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
FOUR ALTRIA: Four Class Suits Over Light Cigarettes Rejected
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Fu Proposal

GALEOS LLC: Sued in California for False Advertising
GEEKNET: Appeal on IPO Lawsuit Settlement Still Pending
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Illegally Stealing Data From Wi-Fi Networks
HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Approves Settlement of Tennessee Suit
HEALTHWAYS INC: Preliminary Approval of Suit Settlement Pending

HOULIHAN SMITH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Process in New York Lawsuit Ongoing
J. CREW: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Adds Homestead Homeowners to Settlement List
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Race Discrimination Suit in Texas

MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Amended Complaint Still Pending in Texas
MEDIACOM: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
MEDIACOM COMMS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Ogg" Suit in Missouri
MEDIACOM COMMS: Still Faces Cable Subscribers' Lawsuit in New York
MEDIACOM COMMS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Delaware

NATIONAL PENN: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued Over Variable Loan Rate Policies
NOVARTIS AG: Judge Gives Final OK to Sex-Bias Class Settlement
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Genesee County Class Action
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Court Stays Consumer Class Action in New York

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions
PROSHARES: Zamansky Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in ETF Class Suit
QUIBIDS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
ROME BANCORP: Defends Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suits
SANFORD BROWN: Judge Certifies Class Action

SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Action From Two Associate-Owners
STAMPS.COM: Appeal on Securities Suit Settlement Remains Pending
TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Faces Five Class Action Suits in Illinois
TOYOTA MOTOR: Acceleration Class Suits Survive Dismissal Motion
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ad

UNITED STATES: Sued Over Gay Service Members' Separation Pay Cut
WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Job Bias Suit
YELLOWSTONE, MT: Judge Allows Class Action Over Wage Policies


                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Unit Posts $467.3M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $175.5MM Sept. 30 Insurance Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $41.6MM Asbestos Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $577.5MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Has 15,594 Abex Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Estimates $759.8MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $164.8MM Receivable at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Insurance Action v. McDermott Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Antoine Action v. McDermott Units Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise GP Has $64.2MM AROs at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Energy Posts $7.5MM AROs at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Records $1.3MM Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $163.5MM Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,500 Cases Ongoing v. Tyco Int'l. at Sept. 24
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Has $2.9MM Asbestos Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Unit Posts $2.3Mil ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Regal Beloit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Increases Reserve by $2.10MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. VWR Funding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 76 Injury Actions Ongoing v. Belden at Oct. 27

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Remains Party to Cryovac Deal Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air (Canada) Facing Thundersky's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Faces 1 Exposure Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers Sept. 30 A&E Liability at $2.44MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker, Ariz. to Get $56T Grant for Remediation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Govt. to Boost Asbestos Payments to AU$311T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitchells & Butlers Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guy, Brock May Be Liable for $1MM in Legal Fees
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Action v. 82 Firms Filed Nov. 10 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $15,600 Fine on Unlicensed Projects
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tower Hamlets Councilor's Death Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Facility on Duwamish Site Needs Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Lawyer Gets $9.25MM for Newport News Client
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Family Investigates Death Due to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Govt. Reaffirms Obligation to Combat Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Dismissal in Reaser Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Valhalla Apartments in Edmonton
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates Board Decision in Clark
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies Petition in Stonewall Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Indicted on Asbestos Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honda Ordered to Pay JPY54MM in Asbestos Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carper Action v. Honeywell, John Crane Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Welcomes News on Mesothelioma Awareness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Suit v. Chevron, BP Transferred to MDL

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Facing 11,300 Actions at Sept. 24
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx's Long-Term Reserve at $39.5M in Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 202 Actions Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Posts $46MM Insurance Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Action Still Ongoing v. Metalclad in Calif.



                             *********


ADAMS GOLF: 1999 Delaware Lawsuit Concluded
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Adams Golf, Inc., filed in 1999 in
Delaware has been fully resolved, according to the company's
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 17, 2010, the Court approved the final class action
settlement regarding the consolidated securities class action
filed in June 1999 in the United States District Court of the
District of Delaware.

The Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims
against all defendants in the litigation.  The settlement provided
for a total payment to the class of $16.5 million in cash and a
payment of the first $1.25 million, after attorneys fees and
costs, actually received (if any) by the company in connection
with the Company's litigation against its former insurance broker
Thilman & Filipini, LLC and the Company's former insurance
carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company.

Of the $16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5 million was paid
by us, which the Company accrued as a liability during the quarter
ended September 30, 2009 and was paid to the settlement fund in
March 2010.

As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO released
the Company from any indemnification obligation.

On July 19, 2010, the appeals period for the final order of
dismissal expired and the litigation was fully and finally
resolved.


ALLIANZ LIFE: Sued for Cheating Buyers of Equity Index Annuities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Mccue at Courthouse News Service reports that Allianz Life
Insurance fraudulently marketed its equity index annuities, basing
their "monthly index adjustment" on the day before the annuities
were purchased, instead of the day they were purchased, a class
action claims in Clark County Court, Las Vegas.

The three named plaintiffs claim that Allianz representatives
showed them brochures and other marketing materials that promised
Allianz would calculate the monthly index adjustment of their
annuities using the date of purchase to provide a favorable
valuation for the purchasers.

But once they bought and were "locked into" the annuities, the
class claims, they discovered that Allianz used the 1-day
backdating "to obtain a more favorable valuation for Allianz, and
a less favorable valuation for plaintiffs and the plaintiff
class."

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract, breach of faith and fair dealing, consumer fraud and
unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Rivera, et al. v. Allianz Life
Insurance Company of North America, et al., Case No. 10-629902
(Nev. Dist. Ct., Nevada Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/Allianz.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Artemus W. Ham, Esq.
          Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
          MAINOR EGLET, LLP
          400 So. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motions to Certify Class Actions Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to certify a series of class actions against subsidiaries
of Ampal-American Israel Corp. remain pending, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On January 31, 2010, Ampal, through its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary Merhav Ampal Energy Ltd. and MAE's wholly owned
subsidiary 012 Smile Telecom Ltd., closed the transaction to
purchase the business of 012 Smile Communications Ltd., pursuant
to an Asset Purchase Agreement for 1.2 billion New Israeli Shekels
or approximately $322 million.

                      012 Smile Telecom Ltd.

In May 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against
012 Smile with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel.  The motion
alleges that 012 Smile unlawfully charges its customers with
higher tariffs than the tariffs agreed.  The total amount of the
action against 012 Smile is approximately NIS 3.0 million
(approximately $0.81 million).  The Company cannot currently
estimate the range of possible loss.  012 Smile has not yet
replied to the motion.  The motion has not yet been scheduled to
be heard.  The motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard.

In September 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 Smile with the Tel-Aviv District Court in Israel.  The
plaintiff alleges that 012 Smile pays rebates without adding
interest or linkage to the Israeli Consumer Price Index.  The
amount of the personal claim is set by the plaintiff at
approximately NIS 1.2.  In the event of certification of the suit
as a class action, the estimated amount of the claim by the
plaintiff will be approximately NIS 11.17 million (approximately
$3 million).  The Company cannot currently estimate the range of
possible loss.  012 Smile has not yet replied to the motion.  The
motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard.

In July 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against
012 Smile with the Central District Court in Israel.  The
plaintiff alleges that 012 Smile's internet advertisements
regarding certain tariffs did not include complete information as
to possible additional tariffs charged of third parties.  The
amount of the personal claim is set by the plaintiff at NIS 397
(approximately $108).  As the plaintiff has not yet determined the
size of the group, the estimated amount of the entire claim is not
yet known.  012 Smile has not yet replied to the motion.  The
motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard.

                 012 Smile Communications Ltd.

In April 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with
various District Courts in Israel against several international
telephony companies including 012, with respect to prepaid calling
card services.  The plaintiffs allege that: (i) the defendants
unlawfully charged consumers in excess of the tariffs published by
them, (ii) the prepaid calling cards provide an average of 50% of
the units of time indicated to the purchasers of the cards, (iii)
the defendants deducted from the prepaid calling cards the time
spent when a user unsuccessfully attempts to make a call utilizing
the card, (iv) the defendants calculated and collected payment not
by units of round minutes indicated, (v) the defendants provided
misleading information about the number of "units" on the card,
and (vi) the defendants formed a cartel that arranged and raised
the prices of calling cards.  In the event the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, the total amount claimed against 012
is NIS 226.4 million (approximately $61.77 million).  The Company
cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile
Telecom Ltd., as successor to 012, filed its summation on June 13,
2010, the plaintiffs' respondent summation was filed on July 22,
2010.  On November 3, 2010, the court granted the plaintiff's
request and certified the suit as a class action against all of
the defendants.  The legal question at issue in the class action
is whether the plaintiffs were misled by the representations made
by the defendants.  In addition, the matters of damages, causal
relation, liability and amount of damage will also be litigated.
The court has ordered the parties to formulate a public
announcement in the matter of the class action proceeding that
shall be approved by the court.  In addition, the court has
ordered the parties to inform the court within 30 days as to the
way in which they wish to continue and conduct the proceeding, and
if such notice is not be submitted to the court, the proceeding
will be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing.

In November 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed
with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against 012.  The
action alleges that 012 unlawfully raised the monthly tariffs for
its Internet services.  The total amount of the claim is NIS 81.5
million (approximately $22.2 million).  The Company cannot
currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 replied to the
motion in May 2009.  A pre-trial hearing was held in January 2010.

In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel.  Together
with the filing of the motion, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
temporary restrictive order to prevent 012 from deleting or
changing data relating to the plaintiff's claims in the motion.
The motion alleges that 012 has violated the Israeli "anti spam"
law by sending advertising materials to its customers.  The amount
of the plaintiff's personal claim is set at NIS 10,000
(approximately $2,700).  The estimated amount of the entire claim
is yet to be known, and therefore, the Company cannot currently
estimate the range of possible loss.  On November 29, 2009, the
court granted a temporary order preventing 012 from deleting or
changing data relating to specific messages which the plaintiff
claims he sent to 012.  012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012,
filed its response to the motion in February 2010.  A court
hearing was held in March 2010 and the court ordered the plaintiff
to notify the court by May 17, 2010 whether he intends to litigate
the claim and the request or to submit a motion to withdraw.  On
May 13, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the suit,
subject to payment of the plaintiff's legal fees by 012 Smile
Telecom.  On June 13, 2010, the court declined the motion, and on
September 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend his suit
and request.  012 Smile Telecom filed its response to the motion
on November 4, 2010.

In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel.  The
motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers who do
not pay their debts on time with collection expenses.  The
estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 21.75 million
(approximately $5.93 million).  The Company cannot currently
estimate the range of possible loss.  012 Smile Telecom, as
successor to 012, replied to the motion on June 14, 2010.  The
plaintiff filed his response on July 11, 2010.  A pre-trial
hearing is scheduled for November 30, 2010.

In December 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel.  The motion
alleges that 012 unlawfully intervenes with web traffic,
especially as it relates to Peer to Peer websites.  The estimated
amount of the entire claim is NIS 40 million (approximately $10.91
million).  The Company cannot currently estimate the range of
possible loss.  012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012, has
replied to the motion.

In January 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012, 012's subsidiary, 012 Telecom Ltd., and others with
the Central District Court in Israel.  The motion alleges that 012
unlawfully charges its customers when placing calls to 012's
support center.  The total amount of the action against 012 and
its subsidiary is approximately NIS 48.6 million (approximately
$13.26 million).  The Company cannot currently estimate the range
of possible loss.  012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012, replied
to the motion on October 17, 2010.


ART TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed
against ART Technology Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary
Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc., two former officers of Primus
and the underwriters of Primus' 1999 initial public offering.

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters received
undisclosed compensation in connection with Primus' initial public
offering.

The litigation has been coordinated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York with claims against
approximately 300 other companies that had initial public
offerings during the same general time period.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation
under which insurance will pay the full amount of the settlement
share allocated to Primus, and Primus bears no financial
liability.

In October 2009, the Court issued an order granting final approval
of the settlement.  Certain objectors are appealing the final
order.

No further updates were reported in ART Technology Group, Inc.'s
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


BALDWIN MUTUAL: Alabama High Court Reverses Certification Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the certification of a class
action against Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., following
the company's appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court's order.

Dean Edwards sued Baldwin Mutual on July 12, 2007, asserting a
breach-of-contract claim.  Specifically, Mr. Edwards stated that,
in August 2005, his house was damaged by Hurricane Katrina and
that Baldwin Mutual was his homeowner's insurer at the time. Mr.
Edwards alleged that, under his homeowner's policy with Baldwin
Mutual, he was entitled to recover the "actual cash value" of his
loss.  Mr. Edwards maintained that, as part of "actual cash value"
he says was due under his policy as a result of his loss, he was
entitled to receive an additional 20% of the costs of material and
labor, a sum, Mr. Edwards alleged, typically charged by
contractors for overhead and profit.  Mr. Edwards alleged that
Baldwin Mutual breached its policy by failing to include that 20%
for contractor overhead and profit in calculating the "actual cash
value" of his loss.  Mr. Edwards also sought to represent a
proposed class of plaintiffs under Rule 32(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.

On March 1, 2010, the trial court entered an order certifying the
class.

Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama concluded that the trial
court exceeded its discretion in certifying the class as redefined
in Mr. Edwards's November 6, 2009, brief.  The high court also
remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

A copy of the court's opinion dated on November 24, 2010, is
available at http://is.gd/i3hxBfrom Leagle.com.


BAYER PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Birth Control Pills
---------------------------------------------------------
Megan Sarrazin, writing for The Gateway, reports two brands of
birth control pills prescribed to roughly two million women in
2009 are being named in a national class action lawsuit alleging
serious health side effects to some of its users.

Yasmin and Yaz, both products of Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals,
are targets of the class action lawsuit by Siskinds, a law firm
based in London, Ont.

According to Matthew Baer, the lead council representing Siskinds,
they receive several calls a week from people noting injuries
resulting from the use of Yasmin or Yaz.

"It just started getting overwhelming, the number of people
calling with respect to this particular brand and so we started
looking into it and seeing that there were a lot of issues in the
U.S. as well."

"We started researching it more and it appears that there's
science showing that the risks of serious injury with Yasmin and
Yaz is worse than comparable contraceptives.  But the warning
that's given is that the risk is the same," said Mr. Baer.

Many of the reported side effects include strokes, pulmonary
embolisms -- a blood clot in the lung -- and various heart
problems.  What Mr. Baer calls the most overwhelming, however, is
that many young women have to get their gall bladders removed.

There have been about 4,000 individual cases against Yasmin and
Yaz in the U.S.  In addition, most provinces in Canada are filing
class action lawsuits against the drugs, according to Baer.

Siskinds has been receiving calls for about a year, in which time
they have logged about 300 significant complaints of side effects.

"We have to be very careful what we choose, and if we choose a
case to do, it's because we're very confident that it will be
successful at the end of the day," said Mr. Baer.

Due to the overwhelming amount of calls the law firm has received
in regards to Yasmin and Yaz, Baer believes the case will be a
success.  He is hoping for an outcome with two major focuses.

"We want to try to get compensation for people who are injured
from using the drug and two, and just as importantly, we want
there to be a proper warning," said Mr. Baer.

"If it is true, as we allege, that there's a significantly greater
increased risk of health problems with people using this drug as
compared to other ones, we want there to be a proper warning in
place so that people can make informed decisions about what
they're putting in their bodies," he added.

Although they are nine or 10 months away from seeing any
significant progress with the case, Mr. Baer is confident that
there will be a settlement.


BOTTOMLINE TECH: Appeal on Suit Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order approving a settlement of a consolidated
securities class action against Bottomline Technologies, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Aug. 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.; Daniel M.
McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.;
Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets; and J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co.  A consolidated amended class action complaint,
In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, was filed on April 20, 2002.

On Nov. 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Optio Software in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Kevin Dewey v. Optio Software,
Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bear, Stearns
& Co., Inc.; Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Bank
Securities, Inc.; Dain Rauscher Inc.; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray,
Inc.; C. Wayne Cape; and F. Barron Hughes.  A consolidated amended
class action complaint, In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 22, 2002.

Optio Software was acquired by the company in April 2008.

The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the
company and Optio assert claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
amended complaints assert, among other things, that the
descriptions in the company's and Optio's prospectuses for their
initial public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters of
the offerings, and in not describing certain alleged arrangements
among underwriters and initial purchasers of the common stock
from the underwriters.  The amended complaints seek damages (or,
in the alternative, tender of the plaintiffs' and the class's
common stock and rescission of their purchases of the common
stock purchased in the initial public offering), costs,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other expenses.

In July 2002, the company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion
to dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs'
claims.  The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.  On Feb. 19,
2003, the court issued an order denying the motion todismiss as to
Bottomline and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to Optio.
In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A. Eberle,
C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from the case
without prejudice.

Both Bottomline and Optio authorized the negotiation of a
settlement of the pending claims, and the parties negotiated a
settlement, which was subject to approval by the court.  On
Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned the District Court's certification of the class of
plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in
the settlement against the underwriter defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the Second Circuit on Jan. 5, 2007 in response to the Second
Circuit's decision.  On April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for
Rehearing of the Second Circuit's decision was denied.

On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating
the settlement.

On Sept. 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in certain designated "focus cases" in the District
Court.  That motion was withdrawn.  Neither Bottomline nor Optio's
cases are part of the designated focus case group.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the issuer defendants in the designated focus
cases filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
class action complaints that were filed in those cases.  On
March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in these focus cases.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a new proposed settlement between plaintiffs, the
underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers
for the issuer defendants.  On June 10, 2009, the Court issued an
opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and
scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for Sept. 10, 2009.
On August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs in the initial public offering
securities class action litigation against Bottomline and its
subsidiary Optio filed a motion for final approval of the
proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  A
settlement fairness hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2009.  On
Oct. 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan
of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes.  An order and final judgment was entered on
November 25, 2009. Various notices of appeal of the Court's order
have been filed.

On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of
appeal filed a stipulation with the court withdrawing their
appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed
briefs in support of their appeals.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Calif. Class Action Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29,
2010.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against Brinker International in California Superior Court
alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal
and rest breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees
and was certified as a class action in July 2006.  On July 22,
2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the class action
on all claims with prejudice.  On October 22, 2008, the California
Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court
of Appeal.


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
Capella Education Company has been named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed by the Police Pension Fund of Peoria in Minnesota,
according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint names Capella Education Company and certain senior
executives as defendants, and alleges the Company and the named
defendants made false or misleading public statements about the
Company's business and prospects during the time period from
February 16, 2010 through August 13, 2010 in violation of federal
securities laws, and that the statements artificially inflated the
trading price of the Company's common stock to the detriment of
shareholders who purchased shares during that time.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the purported class.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Amendment Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Jarzemsky and Brett Philbin, writing for Dow Jones Newswires,
report Charles Schwab Corp. disclosed Tuesday that a court has
preliminarily approved an amendment to its settlement of a
consolidated class-action lawsuit related to investors' losses in
an ultra-short bond fund.

At issue was whether investors outside California had the ability
to bring separate claims against the company under California's
consumer laws, or if the settlement agreement released those
claims.

The plaintiffs agreed to release those claims in exchange for the
ability to opt out of the current agreement and pursue those
claims if they wish, an attorney for the plaintiffs said earlier
this month.

The amendment "releases defendants from any further claims those
class members could assert and provides those class members an
opportunity to opt-out of the settlements and pursue separate
claims," Schwab disclosed in a regulatory filing Tuesday.

The court's approval is subject to a final fairness hearing on
Feb. 11.

The YieldPlus fund, once one of the best performing funds in its
category, became one of the symbols of the financial collapse in
2008, as it posted steep losses because of its holdings of
mortgage-backed securities, which accounted for about half the
portfolio.

Investors' losses from the fund represent a minor black eye for
Schwab, which fared better than many financial-services companies
during the crisis, though it has been hammered by low interest
rates. After the company pulled out of its original settlement,
analysts were concerned that uncertainty over potential litigation
could hurt Schwab's stock.


CONSOL GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Drilling Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------
Paula Reed Ward, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports a
family from Mount Pleasant Borough, Westmoreland County, is suing
Consol Gas Co., charging that the royalties they are being paid
for the gas drilling rights on their property are being improperly
calculated and that the company is taking improper deductions for
post-production costs.

The suit, filed this month in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court,
seeks class-action status, and according to the attorneys
involved, could ultimately include as many as 1,000 plaintiffs.

A similar complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh
against Energy Corporation of America, and it could include as
many as 100 class members if it is certified.

It is unclear how much money could be involved in both cases, said
Mark Nevins, a spokesman for the law firm Caroselli, Beachler,
McTiernan and Conboy, which represents the plaintiffs in both
cases.

According to the lawsuit filed in Common Pleas Court, Earl Hall
Jr. entered an oil and gas lease in March 1998, and his parents,
Earl D. Hall Sr. and Betty Jane Hall, entered such a lease in
October 2002.

Consol acquired the leases in 2010.

The lawsuit, which includes a claim for breach of contract,
charges that Consol violated the lease agreement by taking
impermissible volumetric deductions when calculating the natural
gas royalties.

The Halls said they didn't discover the improper calculations
until September.

The Halls also are seeking a court-ordered accounting of the
royalty payments.

"The named plaintiffs suspect that the royalty payments on all
leases subject to this class action were incorrect from the first
royalty payment to the present."

Ten plaintiffs are named in the federal lawsuit against Energy
Corporation of America, based in Colorado.

The first of the plaintiffs entered lease agreements beginning in
2002.  The most recent lease was signed in 2009.

The federal complaint includes the same claims for breach of
contract and accounting.

Neither Consol nor Energy Corporation of America returned calls
seeking comment Monday evening.


EL PASO CORP: Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing a class action lawsuit against
El Paso Corporation remains pending, according to the company's
November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al.v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado.  The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act as a result of the Company's change from a
defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

The trial court has dismissed all of the claims.  The dismissal of
the case has been appealed.


ERNST & YOUNG: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
----------------------------------------------------
Brian Mansberger, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Ernst & Young LLP, Case No. 652093/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
New York Cty. November 23, 2010), accuses the international
auditing firm of failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in
excess of forty (40) per week due to defendants systematic and
class-wide misclassification of certain of its employees as exempt
from New York's overtime laws.

Mr. Mansberger worked as an uncertified public accountant in
defendants' New York office.  Mr. Mansberger explains that under
applicable New York employment laws, individuals who are not
Certified Public Accountants and who are employed as Staff
Associates or Senior Staff Associates are entitled to overtime
pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI L.L.P.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

               - and -

          Kendall S. Zylstra, Esq.
          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: kzysltra@faruqilaw.com
                  jwells@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Gary Lynch, Esq.
          Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LTD
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (724) 656-1555
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


FOUR ALTRIA: Four Class Suits Over Light Cigarettes Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group (NYSE:MO) had a court victory against claimants
seeking class-action status concerning light cigarettes offered by
the company, as four lawsuits filed against the cigarette maker
were rejected concerning being allowed to proceed in class-action
status.

Canaccord said, "A district court of Maine refused to grant class-
action status to four suits leveled against Altria's Philip Morris
unit by smokers seeking refunds for light cigarettes.  Smokers
have alleged the tobacco company relied on deceptive
advertisements in marketing its low-tar cigarettes; they claim
that Philip Morris used descriptors to suggest the brands were
less harmful than regular cigarettes, even though it knew users
would be getting the same level of tar or nicotine from them.  But
the district court of Maine, which is coordinating multi-district
litigation from several states on the matter, said that each
state's class includes everyone who purchased light cigarettes in
the relevant limitations periods, which necessarily includes
people who knew light cigarettes weren't healthier than others."

The court ruled that "Those class members were not injured by the
defendants' misconduct and thus do not have standing.
Furthermore, in view of the proliferation of information decrying
the health risks of all cigarettes there is no telling how many
potential class members are similarly situated."

Altria isn't out of the legal waters yet though, as there are 15
more lawsuits waiting in the wings to be ruled on.  Lawyers for
Altria are optimistic this ruling will be persuasive concerning
the remaining lawsuits and believed they'll be denied class status
as well.

Altria closed Monday at $24.43, gaining $0.07, or 0.29%.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Fu Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------
Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is facing a class action complaint in
connection with a proposal from its chief executive and Abax
Global Capital (Hong Kong) Limited to acquire the company's shares
of common stock, according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 4, 2010 a shareholder class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain officers and directors thereof in
connection with the November 3, 2010 proposal made by Mr. Li Fu
and Abax for Mr. Fu and Abax to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Common Stock of Fushi not currently owned by Mr. Fu and
his affiliates in a going private transaction for $11.50 per share
in cash, subject to certain conditions.  In the complaint, the
plaintiffs challenge the Fu Proposal and allege, among other
things, that the consideration to be paid in such proposal is
grossly inadequate.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, to
enjoin defendants from consummating the Fu Proposal and to direct
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of the company's
shareholders.  The complaint was filed in Nevada state court.


GALEOS LLC: Sued in California for False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Galeos "aggressively" pushes its miso salad dressings as low-fat
and low-calorie, on (nonparty) Jillian Michaels' TV show "The
Biggest Loser," though the dressings are neither low fat nor low
in calories.  The class claims Galeos advertises its Miso Caesar
Dressing as containing 14 calories, 1gram of fat and 56 milligrams
of sodium per tablespoon, but an independent lab found it contains
120 calories, 11 grams of fat and 390 mg of sodium.

The class seeks restitution, statutory and punitive damages for
unfair competition, false advertising, consumer fraud, breach of
warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.

The only defendant in the complaint is Galeos LLC, based in Costa
Mesa, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Cooperman v. Galeos, LLC, Case No. 10-
cv-01815 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/SaladDressing.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          John J. Carey, Esq.
          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314-725-7700
          E-mail: mflannery@careydanis.com
                  jcarey@careydanis.com
                  casey@jefflowepc.com
                  tyiatras@careydanis.com

               - and -

          David S. Paris, Esq.
          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Telephone: 973-228-6667
          E-mail: david@paslawfirm.com
                  ross@paslawfirm.com


GEEKNET: Appeal on IPO Lawsuit Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order approving a settlement of a consolidated
lawsuit against Geeknet, Inc., is still pending with the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and
Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's
initial public offering, were named as defendants in a shareholder
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, later consolidated and captioned In re VA
Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-
CV-0242.  The plaintiffs' class action suit seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from the time of the Company's initial
public offering in December 1999 through December 2000.  Among
other things, the complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant
to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial
public offering contained certain false and misleading statements
or omissions regarding the practices of the Underwriters with
respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these
offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related
to such allocations.

Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers.  The various cases were
coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

In 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the
action against the Company, alleging violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants in
the coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss.

In 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against the
Company.  In 2006, an appellate court overturned the certification
of classes in six focus cases, which included the Company's case,
that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in
the coordinated proceedings.

Plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints
and again moved for class certification in the six focus cases.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed
class certification.  In 2008, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, the Company will bear
no financial liability and the Company and other defendants will
receive complete dismissals from the case.  On October 5, 2009,
the Court entered an order certifying a settlement class and
granting final approval of the settlement.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals set an October 6, 2010,
deadline for filing an appeal and only one objector filed an
appeal by such date.


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Illegally Stealing Data From Wi-Fi Networks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Knight, writing for Houston Press, reports according to a
federal lawsuit, Google stole private information in Texas when it
was collecting data for Street View.

An East Texas attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against
Google, claiming the company illegally stole data from Wi-Fi
networks while collecting data for Google Maps Street View.

Google got in trouble earlier this year for its Street View
collection methods -- basically driving around cars equipped with
special cameras -- and the company was the target of
investigations in Europe and another lawsuit from plaintiffs in
Oregon and Washington.

The East Texas lawsuit, filed by attorney Eric Findlay on November
24 in federal court in Tyler, deals specifically with "data
scrapping" from Texas homes and businesses, and the suit
represents "All persons located in the State of Texas who owned
and operated an open Wi-Fi network . . . anytime between April
2007 and May 2010."

The lawsuit estimates the numbers in the class are "at least in
the thousands."

From the lawsuit:

Google also intentionally included distinct and specifically
designed software . . . to intercept and record the information
that the Wi-Fi transmitters were transmitting as Google cars were
driving past homes and businesses.  That information was then
stored by Google for purposes only known to Google at this time.
The information intercepted and recorded included entire emails,
email passwords and other private data belonging to the owners and
occupants of the homes and businesses that Google cars passed.

Google admitted to the problem back in May, after the "data
protection authority" in Hamburg, Germany asked to audit Street
View Data.  On its Google blog, the company said: "But it's now
clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload
data from open Wi-Fi networks, even though we never used that data
in any Google products . . . Maintaining people's trust is crucial
to everything we do, and in this case we fell short."

A little more than a month ago, Google announced it would stop
scanning for Wi-Fi networks with its Street View cars.

The lawsuit is seeking $100 a day for each "violation" or $10,000,
whichever is greater, for each member of the class.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Approves Settlement of Tennessee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc., obtained final court approval of an agreement to
settle an amended complaint filed against the company in
Tennessee, according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

Beginning on June 5, 2008, Healthways and certain of its present
and former officers and directors were named as defendants in two
putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.  On
August 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two
related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

The amended complaint, filed on September 22, 2008, alleged that
the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as
"control persons" of Healthways.  The amended complaint further
alleged that certain of the individual defendants also violated
Section 20A of the Act based on their stock sales.  The plaintiff
purports to bring these claims for unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways stock
between July 5, 2007 and August 25, 2008.

In support of these claims, the lead plaintiff alleged generally
that, during the proposed class period, the Company made
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
(1) the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with
customers, (2) the Company's participation in the Medicare Health
Support pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, and (3) the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
November 13, 2008.  On March 9, 2009, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On April 27, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the matter for $23.6 million.  The District Court gave
final approval to the settlement by an order entered on
September 24, 2010.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Preliminary Approval of Suit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc., is awaiting preliminary court approval of an
agreement to settle a putative class action complaint filed
against the company in Tennessee, according to its November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 31, 2008, a purported class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division against Healthways, Inc. and certain of its
directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan.  The central allegation
is that Company stock was an imprudent investment option for the
401(k) plan.

An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2008, naming as
defendants the Company, the Board of Directors, certain officers,
and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering
the 401(k) plan.  The amended complaint alleged that the
defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock
fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent
investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and
results of the MHS pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and
by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to
permit the plan to hold Company stock.  It further alleged that
the Company and its directors should have been more closely
monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries.
The amended complaint sought damages in an undisclosed amount and
other equitable relief.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on October 29, 2008.   On January 28, 2009, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of
the duty to disclose with regard to any non-public information and
information beyond the specific disclosure requirements of ERISA
and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the remainder of
the plaintiff's claims.  A period of discovery ensued.

On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  After the plaintiff failed, without explanation,
to appear for his scheduled deposition, the Court issued an Order
on July 10, 2009 warning the plaintiff that his failure to
participate in the lawsuit could result in sanctions, including
but not limited to dismissal.  After the plaintiff's failure to
participate continued, on July 23, 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the action.  On August
6, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with
prejudice as to the named plaintiff but otherwise without
prejudice, and the Court entered an Order to that effect on the
same date.

On February 1, 2010, a new named plaintiff filed another putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, alleging ERISA
violations in the administration of the Company's 401(k) plan.
The new complaint is identical to the original complaint,
including the allegations and the requests for relief.
Defendants' answer to this complaint was filed on March 22, 2010.
A scheduling order was entered on April 1, 2010, and discovery
commenced thereafter.  On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification.  On June 23, 2010, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter for $1.3 million,
with such settlement being funded by the Company's fiduciary
liability insurance carrier.  The District Court must approve this
settlement after notice to the class before it may be considered
final.  The class settlement has been reduced to writing and
presented to the Court for preliminary approval.


HOULIHAN SMITH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------
Hector De La Riva, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2010-CH-50204 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 23, 2010),
bring claims against the defendants for non-payment of overtime
wages, failing to accurately record actual hours worked, in
violation of the Illinois wage and hour laws, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Hector De La Riva, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, worked
as a commission only, non-exempt employee for defendants.
Houlihan Smith is a Nevada corporation that operates a specialized
investment banking firm in the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
          JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
          431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 939-2100


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Process in New York Lawsuit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated class action lawsuit against iSTAR
Financial, Inc., is ongoing, according to the company's
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of
federal securities laws.  Both suits were purportedly filed on
behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased
Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering.
The two complaints were consolidated in a single proceeding (the
"Citiline Action") on April 30, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock
between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008.  The Complaint named
as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former
executive officers, and certain investment banks who served as
underwriters in the Company's Offering.  The Complaint reasserted
claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege
the defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions
relating to the Company's continuing operations, including the
value of the Company's loan portfolio and certain debt securities
held by the Company.  The Complaint seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees, and rescission of the public offering. No class
has been certified.

The Company and its current and former officers filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009 and, on March 26, 2010,
the Court issued its order granting, in part, the dismissal of
certain Securities Act claims against certain of the Company's
current and former officers, but denying the motion as to all
claims asserted against the Company.

Accordingly, the discovery process has commenced.


J. CREW: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of J. Crew Group
are feathering their own nests by selling the company too cheaply,
through an unfair process, to TPG Capital and Leonard Green &
Partners, for $3 billion, or $43.50 a share, shareholders say in a
class action in New York County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Church v. J. Crew Group, Inc, et al.,
Index. No. 652101/2010( N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/JCrew.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Adds Homestead Homeowners to Settlement List
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Wozniak, writing for The News-Press, reports a Chinese
manufacturer has added a group of Homestead homeowners to a list
of 300 eligible for a pilot program to have their defective
drywall fixed.

Meanwhile, Southwest Florida homeowners already on the pilot list
eagerly await the start of work or worry whether accepting the
settlement offer is the right thing to do.

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Ltd. offered its fix-it program just
before Thanksgiving in what became a double victory for 79
Homestead plaintiffs whose class-action lawsuit, according to
their attorney, was the first certified in the Chinese drywall
debacle.

In addition, Banner Supply, another defendant, also agreed to an
undisclosed settlement in the same class action, said attorney
Victor Diaz.

"For the homeowners to get to this point in less than two years is
a significant accomplishment," Mr. Diaz said.  The class action
was filed Feb. 3, 2009.

"I'm glad the homeowners will finally be able to see a true light
at the end of the tunnel," he said.

The Knauf portion of the settlement applies to 49 of the 79
plaintiffs who have Knauf drywall.  They may elect to be part of
the pilot program or continue to litigate along with their fellow
plaintiffs who have defective drywall from other manufacturers.

The Knauf pilot program was first announced Oct. 14 in a
settlement negotiated by lawyers for plaintiffs in thousands of
drywall lawsuits consolidated before Federal Judge Eldon Fallon in
New Orleans.

The Homestead addition is seen as an extension of that settlement,
a Knauf attorney said.

"KPT looks forward to working cooperatively with homeowners
impacted by its drywall and continue settling on reasonable
repairs," attorney Gregory Wallace said in an e-mail.

The drywall, imported mostly between 2004 and 2008, emits foul-
smelling sulfur compounds that corrode copper and other metal
household items, from plumbing to TVs to jewelry.

Residents of these homes complain of health symptoms from
respiratory problems to nosebleeds.

There are 56 Southwest Florida homeowners in the initial pilot
program list of 300 -- 41 from Cape Coral, 11 from Fort Myers, two
from Punta Gorda and one each from Lehigh Acres and Bokeelia.

Some, like Frank and Kathy Jarvis, have already signed on the
dotted line to have Knauf bring in its selected contractor, Moss
Construction, to gut their home and rebuild it.

Kathy Jarvis said Monday that the couple signed Oct. 15 and is
waiting to hear from their attorney within the next couple of days
on what the exact scope of the remediation work will be.

"This is a blessing from the Lord for the amount of money this
will cost -- they made it clear they will bring the house back to
what it was," she said.  "They will bring it back to the day it
was purchased, and I was happy at that point."

But others are not so sure that Knauf's fix-it protocol will be a
complete remedy.  They point out that the fix falls short of what
is considered the gold standard for drywall remediation
established by Fallon in his previous decisions.

"I am just going to weigh my options," said William Lake of Cape
Coral, who is also on the list.  "Most of the people I talked to
are not happy."

But, "If I have to, I'll have to let them do it because I don't
want to be completely out in the cold," Mr. Lake said.  "I'm not
stupid, either."


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Race Discrimination Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc.,
alleging race discrimination in employment is still pending,
according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who
alleged race discrimination in employment.  Certification hearings
were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin,
Texas in August 1998.  In April 1999, the District Court issued a
decision that certified a class for this case, which included all
black employees employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the
present.  The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003
while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for
this case began in December 2003, and after the close of
plaintiffs' evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the
trial until October 2004.  Although plaintiffs' class
certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices,
plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to
discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the Company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.  On
August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay
award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million
(including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for
attorney's fees that the Company estimates will result in a total
not to exceed $2.5 million.  In addition to back pay with
interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company
to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion
practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and
expenses.

The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on
September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On April 3, 2007, the Company
appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral
argument in this case.  The appellate court subsequently issued a
decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated
the plaintiffs' claim regarding the initial assignment of black
employees into the Foundry Division.  The court also denied
plaintiffs' appeal for class certification of a class disparate
treatment claim.  Plaintiffs' claim on the issue of the Company's
promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was
vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the
opinion.  The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded
with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive
relief.  Finally, the issue of plaintiffs' attorney's fees was
remanded to the District Court for further consideration in
accordance with prevailing authority.

On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation.  At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues
of attorney's fees, a damage award and injunctive relief.

Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiffs' submissions
which described the formula and underlying assumptions that
supported their positions on attorney's fees and damages.  After
careful review of the plaintiffs' submission to the court the
Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal
issues that materially impacted the plaintiffs' requests.  As a
result of these different results, the court requested further
evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to
render a final decision.  The judge reviewed both parties'
arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an
interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs' original
request.  The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority
of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered
the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those
matters.  Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on
damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding
the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney's fees and costs
totaling $5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional
provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0
million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008.  The plaintiffs filed
an appeal of the District Court's interim award of attorney's fees
with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit
subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009 on the
basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had not been
issued.  The court commented that this issue can be reviewed with
an appeal of final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the District Court notified the Company that
it had entered a final judgment related to the Company's ongoing
class-action lawsuit.  The Court ordered the Company to pay the
plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment
interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest.  The
Company had previously estimated the total liability for damages
and interest to be approximately $5.2 million.  The Court also
ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and
expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final
judgment.  On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with
the District Court for a supplemental award of $0.7 million for
attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred between January 1,
2009 and January 15, 2010.  The Company recorded provisions for
these judgments in 2009.

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's
final judgment.  On January 21, 2010, The Company filed a notice
of cross-appeal with the same court.  In addition, the Company
filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of
damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending
the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties'
appeals.  The District Court granted this motion to stay.  On
September 28, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for supplemental attorney's fees, costs and expenses in the amount
of $0.7 million for the period of January 1, 2009 through January
15, 2010.  In order to cover these cost, the Company recorded an
addition provision of $1.0 million in September 2010 for
anticipated costs through the end of 2010.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Amended Complaint Still Pending in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated complaint filed against Mcdermott
International, Inc., in Texas is still pending, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On November 17, 2008, December 5, 2008, and January 20, 2009,
certain alleged purchasers of the company's common stock during
the period from February 27, 2008 through November 5, 2008 filed
purported class action complaints against MII, Bruce Wilkinson
(MII's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board),
and Michael S. Taff (MII's former Chief Financial Officer) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading information and/or concealing material adverse
information relating to the operational and financial status of
three ongoing construction contracts for the installation of
pipelines off the coast of Qatar. Each complaint seeks relief,
including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for costs
and expenses.  The three cases were consolidated and transferred
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

In May 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other things, added Robert A. Deason
(JRMSA's former President and Chief Executive Officer) as a
defendant in the proceedings.  In July 2009, MII and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
referred to a Magistrate Judge.  In February 2010, the Magistrate
Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation on the motion,
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief
under the securities laws and therefore recommended to the
District Court that motion to dismiss be granted.  On March 26,
2010, the Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations in full and dismissing the case.  However, the
order granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint and,
on April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District
Court for leave to amend the complaint.  The defendants filed
their opposition to plaintiffs' motion in May 2010 and the
District Court has not yet ruled on the matter.


MEDIACOM: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Mediacom is
selling itself too cheaply, for $600 million, in a management-led
buyout led by CEO Rocco Commisso, in a federal class action.


MEDIACOM COMMS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Ogg" Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Communications Corporation is awaiting a court's final
judgment in a class action lawsuit filed against Mediacom LLC, one
of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries, captioned Gary Ogg and
Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri, originally filed in April 2001, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was no
cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners to
place the company's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding
the possession of agreements or permission from other third
parties.  While the parties continue to contest liability, there
also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based
on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million. Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.

Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory
of $42.0 million in compensatory damages. Notwithstanding the
verdict in the trial, the company remains unable to reasonably
determine the amount of its final liability in this lawsuit. Prior
to trial the company's experts estimated its liability to be
within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3 million.
The estimate did not include any estimate of damages for
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.  On
March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive
damages of $35,000.

The Court did not enter a final judgment on the verdict and
therefore the amount of the verdict cannot be judicially
collected.


MEDIACOM COMMS: Still Faces Cable Subscribers' Lawsuit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Communications Corporation continues to defend itself in
a class action lawsuit filed by its customers in New York,
according to the Company's November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

A purported class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom
Communications Corp., in which the Company was named as the
defendant, was filed on March 4, 2010.  The complaint asserts that
the potential class is comprised of all persons who purchased
premium cable services from the Company and rented a cable box
distributed by the Company.  The plaintiff alleges that the
company improperly "tied" the rental of cable boxes to the
provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The plaintiff also alleges a claim for
unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.

The Company was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010, and
it has responded.


MEDIACOM COMMS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Communications Corporation is defending itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by certain shareholders in
Delaware, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

Commencing in June 2010, three shareholder class action lawsuits
were filed against Mediacom Communications Corporation and its
individual directors, all in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware under the captions, Colleen Witmer v. Mediacom
Communications Corporation et al., J. Malcolm Gray v. Mediacom
Communications Corporation et al. and Haverhill Retirement System
v. Mediacom Communications Corporation et al.  The lawsuits, which
were consolidated for all purposes in the Delaware Chancery Court,
derived from the previously disclosed offer by Rocco B. Commisso
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of MCC common stock not
already owned by Mr. Commisso, and allege breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting the breaches, and seek injunctive relief
or in the alternative, compensatory damages.


NATIONAL PENN: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshares, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit, which accused the company of being
part of a fraudulent telemarketing scheme, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative
class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1961, et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including
National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345).  The complaint
essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent
telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from
Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the
telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including
National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred
to offshore accounts.  Plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide
class.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued Over Variable Loan Rate Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance took
advantage of thousands of whole-life policyholders by failing to
adjust interest rates on loans in accordance with the economic
climate, as it promised to do.  The class claims Northwestern
adjusted interest rates upward during the stagflation of the late
1970s, but never reduced them, as promised, when interest rates
sank.

Lead plaintiffs Gad and Jean Smith say they bought whole life
policies that "originally contained policy language providing for
a maximum loan interest rates [sic] of 5% of 6% (the '5%/6% limit
policies')."

But the economic morass of the late 1970s, known as stagflation,
brought "an unprecedented rise in market interest rates," and
Northwestern Mutual "became alarmed," according to the complaint.
The insurer feared that "owners of the 5%/6% limit policies would
engage in arbitrage, withdrawing the cash values by borrowing at
the 5% or 6% rate guaranteed them in the policies, and reinvesting
the cash values in other safe investments which paid higher
rates."

So around 1977, the class claims, Northwestern Mutual amended its
policies to charge variable rates "that Northwestern promised
would vary with long-term economic conditions but would never
exceed 8% (the 'variable loan rate amendment')."

"In return for accepting the company's amendment, owners of the
5%/6% policies were offered the right to participate in a higher
tier dividend class together with other members of the mutual
insurance company whose policies allowed Northwestern to charge a
maximum interest rate of 8% on policy loans.  Smith accepted the
offer and each of Smith's six policies was modified to permit a
variable loan rate with a maximum of 8% (the 'variable loan rate
policies').  Despite the sustained drop in interest rates since
1990 and the current historically low interest rate environment,
Northwestern has continued to assess an unchanging 8% interest
rate against the loans made on Smith's variable loan rate policies
in violation of it express contractual and fiduciary duty,"
according to the complaint.

The class seeks an injunction and damages for breach of contract
and breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et ux. v. Northwestern Mutual
Life Insurance Company, Case No. _____ (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/NWMut.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Scoptur, Esq.
          AIKEN & SCOPTUR, S.C.
          2600 North Mayfair Road, Suite 1030
          Milwaukee, WI 53226
          Telephone: (414) 225-0260

               - and -

          Gerry H. Goldsholle, Esq.
          Robert K. Scott, Esq.
          ADVOCATE LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2330 Marinship Way, Suite 121
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 339-6510

               - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Ted Meyers, Esq.
          Craig S. Mielke, Esq.
          Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
          FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE, & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 797-3321

               - and -

          Douglas A. Kreis, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC
          803 North Palafox Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 916-7450

               - and -

          Tom DeVoto, Esq.
          THE DEVOTO LAW FIRM
          7646 Watson Road
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 961-0330


NOVARTIS AG: Judge Gives Final OK to Sex-Bias Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports the federal
judge presiding over a sex-bias class action against Novartis AG's
U.S. unit gave final approval to a $152.5 million settlement the
drugmaker reached in July.

"The road to this settlement was long, arduous, risky and
expensive," U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan wrote
in an opinion Tuesday.  "The settlement is, by all measures,
excellent."

The suit was filed in 2004 by Amy Velez and four other women who
claimed they faced discrimination in pay and promotion and for
pregnancy.  The case was certified as a class action on behalf of
more than 5,600 women who worked in sales jobs at the Novartis
since July 15, 2002.

Under the deal, Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis will pay $60
million in back pay to the class and as much as $40 million in
compensatory damages.  Lawyers for the class were awarded $40.1
million in fees and expenses.  Witnesses and class representatives
get $9.8 million.

Novartis also agreed to implement measures to protect female
workers' rights.

The settlement came after a jury found Novartis liable for
discrimination May 17 and awarded $3.4 million in damages to 12 of
the women.  Two days later, the same jury awarded $250 million in
punitive damages.

The case is Velez v. Novartis Corp., 04-cv-09194, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Genesee County Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.,
remains pending in Michigan, according to the company's Nov. 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In County of Genesee, Michigan (purported class action), the
plaintiff Counties moved for partial summary disposition with
respect to liability under Count I of their complaint on Sept. 13,
2010.

No further details were disclosed in the company's regulatory
filing.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Court Stays Consumer Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court stayed proceedings of a consolidated class action
filed against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., and its affiliates, pending
a decision on motions to dismiss, according to the company's
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The company is a party to various cases brought by consumers and
municipalities and other U.S. governmental entities involving
hotel occupancy taxes and its merchant hotel business model. Some
of the cases are purported class actions, and most of the cases
were brought simultaneously against other online travel companies,
including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege,
among other things, that the company violated the jurisdictions'
hotel occupancy tax ordinances. While not identical in their
allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims, including
violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations
of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment,
imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or
equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and
in some cases, civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a
variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment, full accounting
of monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest,
penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has
been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. An
adverse ruling in one or more of these cases could require the
company to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and possibly
pay penalties, interest and fines. The proliferation of additional
cases could result in substantial additional defense costs.

On October 1, 2010, a putative consumer class action complaint --
Peluso v. Orbitz.com, Orbitz, LLC (d/b/a Orbitz.com), Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide Development, LLC, Orbitz
Worldwide International, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, et al. --
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendants overbilled customers for hotel occupancy taxes
and sales taxes imposed by the City and State of New York and
asserts claims for violation of New York's deceptive business
practices statute, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

On October 7, 2010, the case was consolidated with similar cases
that were previously filed against other OTCs.  The court has
stayed this case pending the outcome of motions to dismiss that
were filed by the other OTCs.


PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Hill, writing for The News Tribune, reports nearly 15
years of federal court-ordered monitoring at the Pierce County
(Wash.) Jail appear to be coming to an end.

Pierce County and inmates have reached a settlement that would
conclude a class-action lawsuit stemming from jail overcrowding,
substandard medical care and other conditions that the plaintiffs
alleged violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment.

The agreement came one week after a Tacoma magistrate judge
identified areas of lingering concern, such as inmate suicides,
which the county has pledged to address.

Under the agreement, the lawsuit that was filed in January 1995
will end no later than March 1, 2011, if the court-appointed
monitor certifies compliance to a U.S. District Court judge by
Feb. 22.  The monitor, Judith Cox of Clifton Park, N.Y., did not
return a phone message seeking comment Monday.

Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor Dan Hamilton said Monday that he
expects the case will close before the February deadline.

He estimated that the lawsuit has cost the county more than $1
million, including legal fees and monitoring expenses.

Doug Honig, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of
Washington, which provided the inmates with legal aid, said the
suit has brought significant improvements in jail conditions such
as a near doubling of the nursing staff, added mental health staff
and re-establishment of outside physician review of deaths and
other issues.

"Jails are not supposed to be pleasant places and they're not, but
there have to be minimum standards of how people are treated," he
said Monday.  "At the time, the jail was not meeting those minimum
standards."

Mr. Hamilton maintained that the jail has been in compliance with
court-ordered standards for years, and he was pleased that the
case was nearing an end "because the fact is that this litigation
has taken up the resources and time of medical staff that would
otherwise be used to take care of prisoners."

In 1996, the sides entered into a contract that would resolve the
claims if various conditions were met.  Pierce County agreed to
reduce overcrowding, allow inmates to practice their religion
freely, provide them legal materials, and investigate complaints
of staff misconduct, among other terms.

The contract also assigned a court monitor to report on the
progress of the county in ensuring that inmates were receiving
appropriate health care.

In 2009, the court granted the county's request to rule that all
provisions of the contract had been satisfied except those dealing
with medical care.  The county and the inmates later narrowed the
lawsuit further, identifying 10 areas for continued monitoring.
The agreement also called for the county to hire two more nurses
for the jail.

In September, Pierce County moved to terminate the contract,
saying it was providing care in the 10 areas at a level above
what's required by the U.S. Constitution.  But there were areas of
disagreement between the county and the court-appointed monitor.

In October, U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold of Tacoma
recommended seven areas be dismissed, agreeing that the county was
providing sufficient care.  However, he ruled that three areas
still needed improvement: privacy at intake, care of chronic
diseases and monitoring for alcohol withdrawal.

Judge Arnold highlighted the deficiencies by relating the case of
one inmate whose body could not rid itself of ammonia without
proper medication.  The inmate was transferred from the jail to at
least two hospitals no fewer than 11 times between November 2009
and early 2010.  Jail staff missed giving him his medication
multiple times, even after staff at two hospitals informed jail
employees of the problem.

"This is not simply negligence, it is symptomatic of a dysfunction
in a health care system that does not properly track and assure
critical medication compliance," he wrote.

Judge Arnold also noted another inmate who committed suicide at
the jail in August, hours after he was arrested for suspicion of
drunken driving and after intake staff had identified a history of
depression.  Judge Arnold noted that there were 16 suicides by
hanging at the jail between 1998 and 2010, the leading cause of
death at the facility.

Judge Arnold also had concerns about the jail's alcohol withdrawal
monitoring, noting a 2008 incident in which jail staff observed a
prisoner vomiting.  But there was nothing in the record to show
the information was passed on to medical staff.  The prisoner was
dead two hours later, Judge Arnold wrote.

Under the Oct. 22 settlement agreement, the medication nurse will
have a face-to-face meeting with any inmate who requires
medication to avoid getting critically ill.

Another term requires that medical staff perform three assessments
a day for a prisoner on alcohol-withdrawal watch.

"We have an agreement that will further improve medical conditions
at the jail," the ACLU's Honig said Monday, "and we'll be watching
to make sure that's fully implemented."


PROSHARES: Zamansky Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in ETF Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky & Associates has been appointed co-lead counsel in the
consolidated class action proceedings concerning exchange-traded
funds ("ETFs") issued by ProShares.  In September the law firm
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint containing allegations
regarding 31 different ETFs.

The law firm is still seeking named plaintiffs for a number of
those funds, all of which failed in the same manner as the SRS
fund that was the subject of our original Complaint.  Please
contact us at (212) 742-1414 or by emailing jake@zamansky.com if
you purchased any of the following funds anytime between August 6,
2006 through June 23, 2009:

AGQ              Ultra Silver
GLL              Ultra Short Gold
MZZ              Ultra Short MidCap 400
QID              Ultra Short QQQ
REW              Ultra Short Technology
SIJ              Ultra Short Industrials
SJF              Ultra Short Russell 1000 Value
SKK              Ultra Short Russell 2000 Growth
SZK              Ultra Short Consumer Goods
ZSL              Ultra Short Silver

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY RETAINED COUNSEL, PLEASE DISREGARD THIS
INFORMATION.

Contacts: Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          E-mail: jake@Zamansky.com


QUIBIDS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2010, a class action lawsuit has been filed
against QuiBids, LLC, by the law firm of Beckham & Mandel in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging
deceptive and unfair trade practices and fraud in its operation of
QuiBids.com.

QuiBids.com is an interactive online Web site which allegedly
allows its users to buy consumer products at greatly reduced
prices by participating in online auctions.  QuiBids.com claims
that users of their Web site will pay 80%-95% less than retail
prices for thousands of consumer products, including high-end
items such as HDTVs, laptops, and even automobiles, by bidding on
their merchandise via online auctions.  However, according to the
suit, virtually none of the consumers who participate in these
"auctions" will win the right to purchase such high-end item
products at those greatly reduced prices.

The suit alleges that the failure to win auctions is costly to
QuiBids customers.  Each auction draws hundreds or thousands of
bids purchased at $0.60 per bid.  The losing bidders do not get
back the cost of the losing bids.  Thus, the overwhelming majority
of customers will lose money using the QuiBids Web site, according
to the suit.

The suit alleges that QuiBids.com does not tell its customers that
they have virtually no chance to come out ahead financially.
Thus, while QuiBids.com passes itself off as a legitimate auction
house, its business operation is more akin to a casino or a
lottery.

As a result of QuiBids.com's alleged fraudulent and deceptive
business practices, the suit alleges QuiBids has taken in millions
of dollars.  In one such auction, alleged in the suit, QuiBids'
profits exceeded $12,000 from the bidding on a $1,500 HDTV.  The
ultimate winner paid $228.59, but 22,859 bids were purchased by
all bidders in the total amount of $13,715.40.  All of those
bidders except one walked away with nothing, never knowing they
were playing more of a lottery than bidding in an auction.

While QuiBids.com claims that it offers consumers great savings,
"In reality, they are just taking people's money and giving them
nothing in return," Roger Mandel, attorney for the Class, said.
"If they want to operate their business like a lottery, then they
need to tell people the truth about their chances of winning --
which are slim to none," said Mandel.

A copy of the Complaint is available at http://is.gd/i23C0


ROME BANCORP: Defends Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rome Bancorp, Inc., according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, is defending itself from lawsuits filed
by stockholders resulting from the Company's merger with Berkshire
Hills Bancorp.

Following the public announcement of the execution of the merger
agreement between Rome Bancorp and Berkshire Hills Bancorp, on
October 18, 2010, Stephen Bushansky filed a stockholder class
action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of the Bronx, and, on October 27, 2010, James and Liliana
DiCastro filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Chancery
Court of the State of Delaware, each against Rome Bancorp, Inc.,
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., and the directors of Rome Bancorp,
Inc. Each lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of Rome
Bancorp's public stockholders and alleges that the directors of
Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties to Rome Bancorp's
stockholders by failing to take steps necessary to obtain a fair
and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common stock.  The lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks
unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages on behalf of
Rome Bancorp's stockholders.

Each lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.


SANFORD BROWN: Judge Certifies Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a
class action against Sanford Brown Colleges and its corporate
parent has been certified by Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack.

Judge Stack signed the order Monday, just days before his
scheduled retirement Dec. 3.

Judge Stack heard oral arguments for and against certification on
Nov. 15.

The class will include just over 2,000 students enrolled at
Sanford Brown's Collinsville campus who attended its medical
assistants program.

The lead plaintiffs in the suit, including Jenna and Jessica
Lilley, claim that they and the class were misled about the value
and career paths a degree from the school would achieve.

Their attorney, John Carey, told Stack during arguments that the
school had basically given his clients and class members "a
worthless piece of paper."

Sanford Brown has argued that the plaintiffs' claims are too
individual to meet the requirements for a class action.

"This is putting lipstick on a pig," defense counsel James Monafo
said Nov. 15.

The school and its corporate parent, Career Education Corp., also
contend that the plaintiffs admitted to never reading provided
statistics from the school and that they understood what
admissions representatives told them about the program and its
translation into a job.

Sanford Brown had attempted to have the suit dismissed.

Judge Stack threw out certain claims including certain fraud
allegations.

In his Nov. 29 class certification order, Stack finds that class
members meet the numerosity requirement for a class action to go
forward.

The judge also finds that common questions of law and fact apply
to the case on claims under the Illinois Private Business and
Vocational Schools Act.

Judge Stack found that the issue of causation, one that the
defendants argued was lacking in the case, does not apply under
the business and vocational schools statute.

Judge Stack had expressed his doubts about the causation issue
during the class certification hearing.

He also questioned whether two classes would be needed in the
case.

In the end, he certified a single class.

The St. Louis firm of Carey & Danis LLC and the Klamann Law Firm
of Kansas City are designated as class counsel in the order.

The Klamann firm has played a role in several similar individual
suits against Sanford Brown in Missouri.

James Monafo, John Richmond and others represent Sanford Brown and
Career Education Corp.

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


SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Action From Two Associate-Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. says it is
being sued for $1 billion by two of its licensed associate-owners,
who are seeking class-action status.

Class-action status would allow the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of
all Shoppers associate-owners and share any compensation among
them.

Canada's largest pharmacy company says has been accused of
breaching contractual agreements with its associate-owners.

Shoppers provided few details except to say the suit alleges it
collected or kept money or benefits beyond what was contractually
permitted.

The company says it believes the claims are without merit and it
will defend itself vigorously.

At the beginning of October, Shoppers had 1,181 stores owned and
operated by associates.


STAMPS.COM: Appeal on Securities Suit Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order approving the settlement of securities
class action lawsuits filed against Stamps.com, Inc., remains
pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its
current and former board members and officers, as a defendant
in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public
offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock.
Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including
interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would not
have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately
terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit determined that the class could not be certified as
defined.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an alternative
class definition in related litigation.

In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which has
been documented and filed with the court for its review and
approval.  As with the company's previously proposed settlement,
this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make
any payments.  The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved
by the court in June 2009.

In October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this action,
which does not require the company to make any payments.  The
court approval has been appealed.


TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Faces Five Class Action Suits in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland, Inc., is facing five class action complaints filed
in Illinois, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2010.

On September 9, 2010, Temple-Inland was one of eight
containerboard producers named as defendants in a class action
complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v.
Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.).  The complaint alleges
that the defendants, beginning in August 2005, conspired to
artificially increase prices of containerboard and corrugated
containers.  The alleged class is all persons in the United States
who purchased corrugated sheets or corrugated containers directly
from any defendant during the period August 2005 to the present.
The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble
actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported
class.  Four additional plaintiffs have filed substantially the
same complaints in the Northern District of Illinois.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Acceleration Class Suits Survive Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Bill Callahan, writing for Bloomberg
News, report Toyota Motor Corp. lost its bid to dismiss class-
action lawsuits filed by car owners claiming economic losses tied
to sudden acceleration.

The car owners' lawyers provided sufficient evidence to allow
their cases to go forward, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna in
Santa Ana, California, said Tuesday, finalizing a tentative ruling
issued Nov. 19.  Toyota sought dismissal of the suits, contending
the plaintiffs failed to plead specific losses or identify an
actual defect.

"It is true that plaintiffs do not generally allege the precise
dollar value of their losses, but that level of specificity is not
required at the pleadings state," Judge Selna said.  "The court is
convinced that a safety consideration as fundamental as whether a
car is able to stop when the brakes are applied is material to
consumers."

The economic-loss lawsuits, combined for pretrial filings and
rulings before Judge Selna, claim Toyota drove down the value of
vehicles by failing to fix or disclose defects that triggered
unintended acceleration.  Federal suits claiming death or injury
caused by such episodes are also combined in the Santa Ana court.

Toyota, based in Toyota City, Japan, has recalled more than 8
million vehicles for repairs related to sudden, unintended
acceleration.  In September 2009, the automaker announced a recall
of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles, saying floor mats might
jam accelerator pedals.  The company later recalled vehicles over
the pedals themselves.

Celeste Migliore, a spokeswoman for Toyota, didn't immediately
respond to e-mail and phone messages seeking comment.

The cases are combined as In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, 8:10-ml-02151, U.S. District Court, Central District
of California (Santa Ana).


TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------
A team of attorneys from Edelson McGuire, LLC has achieved a
settlement in a class action lawsuit relating to the alleged
transmission of an unsolicited text message advertisement to the
cell phones of consumers nationwide.  The lawsuit brought against
the producer and distributor of the motion picture Robots alleged
that the text-message advertisement, in which the Robots
distributor retained a third party marketing firm to promote the
DVD release of the motion picture Robots, violated a provision of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved November 17, 2010
by a Federal Court in Chicago, establishes a $16 million cash
settlement fund out of which payments of up to $200 will be made
to each cell phone user who received the Robots text message.  The
defendants Twentieth Century Fox and Twentieth Century Fox Home
Entertainment LLC d/b/a FoxStore.com have denied the advertisement
violated any laws or was in any way improper or harmful to
consumers.

Edelson McGuire in Chicago -- a firm that regularly handles
consumer technology class actions -- were appointed by the Court
to serve as attorneys for the class.  This settlement is an
excellent result for the class members who received the Robots
message and for cell phone users throughout the nation," commented
Ryan D. Andrews, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Edelson McGuire's Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, and Michael
J.McMorrow are also representing the class.  Those who received
the Robots message are encouraged to visit
http://www.LozanoTextSettlement.com/to learn more details about
the settlement and how to apply for a settlement payment.  Class
members may also call the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-695-
7495 or Edelson McGuire, LLC at 1-866-354-3015 for more
information.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Gay Service Members' Separation Pay Cut
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports it's like pouring salt on the
wound, say critics of the government policy of cutting separation
pay in half for men and women discharged from the US military
under the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) rule.

The American Civil Liberties Union has just filed a national class
action claiming the practice violates the rights of the former
service members under the equal protection and right to
substantive due process components of the Fifth Amendment.

"A little over a year ago, a former member of the US Air Force,
who had been honorably discharged under DADT, came to us and said
his separation pay had been cut in half and wanted to know if we
could help," says ACLU attorney Joshua Block.

Since the administration is on record opposing discrimination
against gays in the military, Mr. Block and the ACLU thought this
would be easy to reconcile, but after a year of letters and
telephone calls, nothing has changed for former US Air Force
Staff-Sergeant, Richard Collins.

"We finally sent a demand letter saying we hope you fix this
policy, but if you don't, we have no choice but to bring this
litigation," says Mr. Block.

During his nine-year career, according to the documents filed by
the ACLU, Mr. Collins had been an exemplary member of the armed
forces.  He was awarded a good conduct medal, served in Kosovo and
was promoted quickly through the ranks.

Mr. Collins was honorably discharged in 2006 after two civilians
who worked at his base reported seeing him kissing a boyfriend in
a car stopped at red light.  Mr. Collins was off duty, dressed in
civilian clothes and more than 10 miles from his base in Arizona.

And Mr. Collins is not alone in being short-changed on separation
pay.  The amount of money owed to military personnel kicked out
for being homosexual is "not insignificant," says Mr. Block.  "And
the policy is offensive."

"It is rubbing salt in the wound," says Mr. Block.  "These people
are kicked out of the military through no fault of their own and
then on top of that their separation pay is cut in half."

The argument against gays in the military has historically been
that it affects troop morale says Mr. Block.  "So even if you
believe that DADT was necessary for unit cohesion, it doesn't
provide a reason to cut someone's separation pay in half," he
adds.

The class covers anyone who was honorably discharged over the last
six years -- with at least six years of service, and had their pay
cut in half.

Although how many ex-military personnel might qualify as members
of the class is unknown, it's estimated there may be as many as
500 potential class members.

The suit asks that former service members be paid the money owed
to them with interest, both pre- and post-judgment, and that the
attorney fees also be paid.

The claims court cannot provide injunctive relief to plaintiffs
says Mr. Block.  "That's beyond the scope of claims court;
however, hopefully a judgment in our favor would stop the practice
once and for all."

Joshua Block is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties
Union in New York City working on the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender and AIDS Project.


WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Job Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David G. Savage, writing for Tribune's Washington Bureau, reports
the fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in U.S. history -- a
claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and
promotions for many years -- hinges on whether the Supreme Court
will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce soon whether it will hear the
retail giant's appeal asserting that a single suit cannot speak
for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following
the case for its implications for class-action litigation.

"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but
because of the economics of it, class-action certification is
often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington
lawyer Roy Englert Jr.

If the court permits the case to proceed as a class action, it
will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said.
The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but
given the size of the class, it could be in billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have
joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the
court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action
claims.  They argue it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to
lump together many thousands of employees from stores across the
country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination.

But civil rights advocates say the only effective way to challenge
systemic discrimination in a large company is to bring a claim on
behalf of all of the affected employees.

"If the Supreme Court takes this case, it will signal this
business-friendly court is hostile to class actions against
corporate defendants," said Stanford Law School professor Deborah
Hensler, an expert on civil litigation.

This month, the court heard another case that could decide the
fate of class-action suits involving consumers and their
purchases.

Lawyers in San Diego filed a class-action suit against ATT
Mobility alleging that its ads promising free cell phones were
fraudulent because the buyers had to pay $30 for sales tax.

In its defense, ATT said the fine print that came with its phones
said all claims must be handled individually through arbitration,
not through a class-action suit.

If the high court agrees with ATT and decides that the Federal
Arbitration Act trumps the buyer's right to sue, consumer
advocates fear it could mean the end of class-action claims
involving products and services.

The Wal-Mart case began in 2001, when lawyers in San Francisco
sued on behalf of six current and former employees, led by Betty
Dukes, a Wal-Mart store greeter in Pittsburg, Calif.

They alleged the Arkansas-based retailer had hiring and promotion
policies that allowed male managers to award higher pay and better
jobs to men.  They sought lost wages and benefits for more than
1.5 million women who had worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores
since 1998.

"We found Wal-Mart to be an outlier" based on salary data for men
and women employees, said Joseph Sellers, a Washington lawyer for
the plaintiffs.  "Wal-Mart was so preoccupied in growing its
business that it left in place personnel policies that were a
throwback to practices from 20 or 30 years ago."

A federal judge in California said the suit could be tried as a
class action; the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that
decision in April by a 6-5 vote.

In its appeal, Wal-Mart's lawyers said it was unfair and
unconstitutional to force the company to defend itself against the
broad allegation that discriminatory decisions were made in 3,400
stores.

"The company's policies forbid discrimination and support
diversity," said Los Angeles lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr., who
filed Wal-Mart's appeal.


YELLOWSTONE, MT: Judge Allows Class Action Over Wage Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hagengruber, writing for The Billings Gazette, reports a
lawsuit filed in federal court over wage policies at the
Yellowstone County (Mont.) Sheriff's Office is now a class-action
lawsuit.

Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull ordered that the lawsuit
be expanded to include all eligible deputies in the department if
they choose to join.  Yellowstone County didn't object to the
order, and county officials are optimistic that the lawsuit will
be settled quickly in mediation.

Deputy Jamie Swecker filed the lawsuit in September claiming that
deputies were forced for years to report for an unpaid briefing 15
minutes before their regular shifts began.  Sheriff Jay Bell
changed that policy at about the time that the lawsuit was filed.

Judge Cebull ordered that the county compile a list of all
deputies who qualify for the lawsuit.  The county will give that
list to Mr. Swecker's attorneys, who will then contact all of the
deputies on the list.

Deputies will have until Feb. 8 to either join the lawsuit or opt
out.  Deputy County Attorney Kevin Gillen said he thinks the
process will move more quickly because most of the deputies are
still working at the Sheriff's Office.  Mr. Gillen said both sides
are discussing possible mediators who could resolve the lawsuit
outside of court.

"Everybody wants to get this resolved," Mr. Gillen said.  "It's
just a wage dispute, but it's something that needs to be
addressed."

Judge Cebull also amended the lawsuit to include the names of 19
more deputies who have already joined the lawsuit.  Judge Cebull
appointed Mr. Swecker as representative for all the deputies who
join the lawsuit and named his attorneys as the lead attorneys.

Mr. Gillen said the county didn't object to the class-action
designation because it wants all affected deputies to be dealt
with equally.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Unit Posts $467.3M Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, recorded an asbestos liability of US$467.3 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

GST LLC's asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$157.1 million as of Sept. 30, 2010.

GST LLC recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$1.1 million
during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$13.7 million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

GST LLC recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$24.7 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$41.8 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs,
develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, self-
lubricating, non-rolling bearing products and heavy-duty, medium-
speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $175.5MM Sept. 30 Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2010, had US$175.5 million
insurance coverage that the Company believes is available to cover
current and future asbestos claims against Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and certain expense payments.

GST has collected insurance payments totaling $16.9 million since
its June 5, 2010 bankruptcy petition date.  In addition, at the
Petition Date, the Company had classified US$4.2 million of
otherwise available insurance as insolvent.

Of the US$175.5 million of collectible insurance coverage and
trust assets, the Company considers US$172 million (98%) to be of
high quality because the insurance policies are written or
guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is
investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best rating is
excellent (A-) or better.

The Company considers US$3.4 million -- 2% -- to be of moderate
quality because the insurance policies are written with various
London market carriers.  Of the US$175.5 million, about US$139.4
million is allocated to claims that have been paid by GST and
submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement and the
remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims,
subject to potential competing claims of other covered
subsidiaries and their assignees.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs,
develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, self-
lubricating, non-rolling bearing products and heavy-duty, medium-
speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $41.6MM Asbestos Charge at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., in the first nine months of 2009, recorded
a pre-tax charge of US$41.6 million to reflect cash outlays of
US$22 million for fees and expenses and a US$19.6 million non-cash
charge.

Prior to mid-2004, the Company maintained that its subsidiaries'
liability for unasserted claims was not reasonably estimable.  The
Company estimated and recorded liabilities only for pending claims
in advanced stages of processing, for which it believed it had a
basis for making a reasonable estimate.  The Company disclosed the
significance of the total potential liability for unasserted
claims in considerable detail.

During 2004, the Company authorized counsel to retain Bates White,
a recognized expert, to assist in estimating its subsidiaries'
liability for pending and future asbestos claims.  Beginning in
the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company has updated its estimate
of the subsidiary liability regularly.

For the year to date prior to the June 5, 2010 Petition Date, the
Company recorded a pre-tax charge of US$23.3 million in connection
with the update of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's asbestos
liability.  The charge reflects US$13.8 million of fees and
expenses paid during the period and a US$9.5 million non-cash
charge.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs,
develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, self-
lubricating, non-rolling bearing products and heavy-duty, medium-
speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $577.5MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos- and
environmental-related exposures were US$577.5 million during the
three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$652.3 million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009.

The Company recorded gross reserves of US$614.1 million for A&E
matters during the three and six months ended June 30, 2010,
compared with US$704.5 million during the three and six months
ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010)

The Company's net reserves for A&E-related exposures were
US$554.6 million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2010, compared with US$622.8 million during the three and nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$131.8 million representing case reserves reported
by ceding companies, US$131.8 million representing additional case
reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims,
US$41.2 million representing case reserves established by the
Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley,
and US$272.7 million representing IBNR (incurred by not reported)
reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$551.4 million, or 95.5%, of
total A&E reserves, of which US$445.8 million was for assumed
business and US$105.6 million was for direct business.

The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.7 years
at Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd.,
through its subsidiaries, provides reinsurance and insurance in
the United States, Bermuda and international markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Has 15,594 Abex Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, at Sept. 30, 2010, recorded 15,594 pending
asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo-
Abex Corporation.

At June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 15,281 pending asbestos-
related claims that were part of its obligation to Pneumo.  (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business
to Federal-Mogul Corporation.  These discontinued businesses
(including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo-
Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through subsidiary
companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to
Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17,
1998 (1998 Agreement).

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that Cooper may have to Pneumo under a
1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed
a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.  The Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and
Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to
approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement.  As part of its obligation to Pneumo
for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction
product line (Abex Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by
Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims.

Based on information provided by representatives of Federal-Mogul
and recent claims experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30,
2010, a total of 148,960 Abex Claims were filed, of which 133,366
claims have been resolved.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, about 1,220 claims
were filed and 8,455 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998,
the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was
US$2,031 before insurance.

A total of US$182.8 million was spent on defense costs for the
period Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2010.  Due to the
exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with
certain excess insurers, existing insurance coverage currently
provides about 30% recovery of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims, although, in certain periods, insurance
recoveries can be higher due to new settlements with insurers.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc's
electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as
well as lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power
management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial,
and industrial use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Estimates $759.8MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, as of Sept. 30, 2010, estimates that the
liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs for
the next 45 years will be US$759.8 million, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company estimated that the liability for
pending and future asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs
for the next 45 years will be US$769.8 million.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The amount included for unpaid indemnity and defense costs is not
significant at Sept. 30, 2010.  The estimated liability is before
any tax benefit and is not discounted as the timing of the actual
payments is not reasonably predictable.

Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

Although it said it believes that its estimated liability for
pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the best
estimate of its future obligation, the Company utilized scenarios
that it believed were reasonably possible that indicate a broader
range of potential estimates from US$505 to US$877 million
(undiscounted).

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc's
electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as
well as lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power
management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial,
and industrial use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $164.8MM Receivable at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, as of Sept. 30, 2010, recorded an asbestos
receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounting to
US$164.8 million, of which US$57.5 million relate to costs
previously paid or insurance settlements.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$670 million.
Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance sheet
include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements,
settlements or policy recoveries are probable.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers may defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that Cooper
is entitled to receive beyond 12 months.  About 92% of the
US$164.8 million receivable from insurance companies at Sept. 30,
2010 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating is
Excellent (A-) or better.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc's
electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as
well as lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power
management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial,
and industrial use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Insurance Action v. McDermott Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos insurance action styled Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., filed
against McDermott International, Inc. and subsidiary J. Ray
McDermott, Inc., is still pending.

On or about Aug. 23, 2004, the declaratory judgment action was
filed by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle
Insurance Company Limited (London Insurers), in the 23rd Judicial
District Court, Assumption Parish, La., against the Company, JRMI
and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA.

The suit seeks a declaration that the London Insurers have no
obligation to indemnify the Company and JRMI for certain bodily
injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts, and an environmental claim involving a former
subsidiary.

Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a
declaration of non-coverage in about 20 underlying matters.  This
proceeding was stayed by the court on Jan. 3, 2005.

Headquartered in Houston, McDermott International, Inc. is an
engineering, procurement, construction and installation company
focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas
projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Antoine Action v. McDermott Units Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are party
to an asbestos-related action styled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott,
Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial District Court for
Harris County, Tex.

In a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al., filed Dec. 16, 2005 in the 24th Judicial District
Court, Jefferson Parish, La., about 88 plaintiffs sued about 215
defendants, including J. Ray McDermott, Inc. and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation, another affiliate of the Company,
generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and
unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were
allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims, without prejudice to their right to refile their claims.

On Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al v.
McDermott, Inc., et al., originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, 21 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, McDermott,
Inc. and about 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act
seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes,
solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise.

Boudreaux was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007.  The District Court
entered an order in September 2007 staying the matter until
further order of the court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of
the co-defendants.

Additionally, on Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Antoine, et
al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial
District Court for Harris County, Tex., 43 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and about
65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants,
alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal
injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise.

On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all
activity and deadlines in this matter other than service of
process and answer/appearance dates until further order of the
court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on Feb. 20,
2009, which is pending before the District Court.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in
both cases and attorneys' fees in the new Antoine case.

Headquartered in Houston, McDermott International, Inc. is an
engineering, procurement, construction and installation company
focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas
projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise GP Has $64.2MM AROs at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s asset retirement obligations were
US$64.2 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$54.8 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company records asset retirement obligations related to legal
requirements to perform retirement activities as specified in
contractual arrangements and/or governmental regulations.  In
general, the AROs primarily result from (i) right-of-way
agreements associated with the Company's pipeline operations, (ii)
leases of plant sites and (iii) regulatory requirements triggered
by the abandonment or retirement of certain underground storage
assets and offshore facilities.

In addition, the AROs may result from the renovation or demolition
of certain assets containing hazardous substances such as
asbestos.

Headquartered in Houston, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. owns
Enterprise Products GP, LLC, the general partner and 2% owner of
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.  Enterprise Products Partners is
a leading player in the North American natural gas, natural gas
liquids and crude oil markets, with a range of processing,
transportation, and storage services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Energy Posts $7.5MM AROs at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Energy Partners L.P.'s asset retirement obligation
liability balance was US$7.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$10.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company records asset retirement obligations related to legal
requirements to perform retirement activities as specified in
contractual arrangements and/or governmental regulations.

In general, the Company's AROs primarily result from (i) right-of-
way agreements associated with the Company's pipeline operations,
(ii) leases of plant sites and (iii) regulatory requirements
triggered by the abandonment or retirement of certain facilities.

In addition, the Company's AROs may result from the renovation or
demolition of certain assets containing hazardous substances such
as asbestos.

Headquartered in Houston, Duncan Energy Partners L.P. finds,
stores, and transports natural gas and other petrochemicals.  Its
operations include Mont Belvieu Caverns (33 salt-dome storage
"tanks" with a 100-million-barrel capacity), the 1,000-mile-long
Acadian Gas pipeline in Louisiana, propylene pipelines between
Texas and Louisiana, and a 297-mile-long intrastate natural gas
liquids (NGLs) pipeline.


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

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual quarterly report filed on Nov. 24, 2010 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in
three business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.
Mueller Co. manufactures valves for water and gas systems,
including butterfly, iron-gate, tapping, check, plug and ball
valves, as well as dry-barrel and wet-barrel fire hydrants and a
full range of metering products for the water infrastructure
industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Records $1.3MM Sept. 30 Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related asset retirement obligations on Digital
Realty Trust, Inc.'s condensed consolidated balance sheets was
about US$1.3 million as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations
as required by current accounting guidance.  The amount of asset
retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated asbestos
removal costs at the end of the economic life of properties that
were built before 1984.

Headquartered in San Francisco, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns,
acquires, develops, redevelops and manages technology-related real
estate.  As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's portfolio consisted
of 95 properties, excluding two properties held as investments in
unconsolidated joint ventures, of which 81 are located throughout
North America and 14 are located in Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $163.5MM Reserve at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's gross asbestos and
environmental claim and loss adjustment expense reserves were
US$163.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$172.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's net A&E claim and loss adjustment expense reserves
were US$131.1 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$136.9
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Chicago, Old Republic International Corporation,
through more than 125 subsidiaries covering the U.S. and Canada,
is an insurance holding company operating in three primary areas:
Old Republic General Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty unit, and Title
Insurance group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation or its former subsidiary,
NATCO Limited Partnership, is named as a defendant in asbestos-
related lawsuits.

The Company or NATCO is named in about 251 lawsuits, the majority
of which were filed between 1989 and 2000.  In these lawsuits, the
plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily pleural abnormality
or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels.
The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in the
Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of
Michigan.

All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the
inactive docket.  Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to
reinstate the cases at a future date without being barred by the
statute of limitations.

Since October 2009, the presiding judge has reactivated about 500
cases in an effort to clear out the administrative docket.  Six of
the cases reactivated to date name the Company as a defendant.  Of
these six cases, one of the plaintiffs has elected not to pursue
his claims.  Discovery on the remaining five cases was stayed by
the presiding judge.

In addition, by order entered March 2, 2010, the judge dismissed
7,405 lawsuits pending in the administrative docket, including 12
that named the Company as a defendant.

It is anticipated that the presiding judge will continue to
activate and dismiss more cases during the remainder of 2010 and
through 2011 both per his discretion and per agreement of counsel.

Headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation provides dredging services in the United States.  In
addition, the Company is the only U.S. dredging service provider
with significant international operations, which represented 13%
of its dredging revenues for the first nine months of 2010,
compared with the Company's three year average of 30%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Facing Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
has been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in
lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos during work at such formerly owned
facilities.


Those facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.

CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.

Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns
and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states.  Its
subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas
gathering systems and provide various ancillary services.  The
Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,500 Cases Ongoing v. Tyco Int'l. at Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 3,500 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against
Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries as of Sept. 24, 2010,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Nov. 12, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.

These cases typically involve product liability claims based
primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of
industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties.  Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.

Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2005, the
Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case
returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which
included both compensatory and punitive damages.  The Company
recently settled the matter while its appeal was pending for
significantly less than the amount awarded by the jury.

Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company
has determined that there were about 4,700 claims outstanding as
of Sept. 24, 2010, which amount reflects the Company's current
estimate of the number of active claims made against it or its
affiliates, and includes adjustments for claims that are not
actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants or are
duplicative of other actions.

Headquartered in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Tyco International
Ltd. is a diversified, global company that provides products and
services to customers in various countries throughout the world.
The Company provides security products and services, fire
protection and detection products and services, valves and
controls and other industrial products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Has $2.9MM Asbestos Liabilities at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, has
recorded a liability of US$2.9 million related to potential future
asbestos abatement activities at its Properties, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company recorded a liability of US$2.8
million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities
at its Properties.

Headquartered in Chattanooga, Tenn., CBL & Associates Properties,
Inc. is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real
estate investment trust that is engaged in the ownership,
development, acquisition, leasing, management and operation of
regional shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and
office properties.  The Company's shopping centers are located in
27 states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Unit Posts $2.3Mil ARO Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. says that, at Sept. 30, 2010, the
amount of the regulatory asset was US$2.3 million and the related
asbestos-related asset retirement obligation liability on the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet was US$2.9 million.

Company unit Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has recorded
an ARO for the remediation of asbestos existing on its system.

The asbestos existing on Central's system is primarily in building
materials and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of
1973 that established the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) that regulates the use of
asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the amount of the regulatory asset was US$2.4
million and the related ARO liability on the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheet was US$2.8 million.

Headquartered in Owensboro, Ky., Southern Star Central Corp. was
incorporated in Delaware in September 2002 and operates as a
holding company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations
and development opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. is the Company's only operating subsidiary and the
sole source of its operating revenues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Regal Beloit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation continues to be party to litigation that
arises in the normal course of its business operations, including
product warranty and liability claims, contract disputes and
environmental, asbestos, employment and other litigation matters.

The Company's products are used in industrial, commercial and
residential applications that subject the Company to claims that
the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or
other damage.

Headquartered in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation
manufactures commercial, industrial, and heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) electric motors, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other
parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims
against the Company.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense
under those policies.

The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this
situation.  The Company said it believes it has additional
policies available for other years, which have been ignored by the
carriers.

Headquartered in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation is an
international firm engaged in designing, developing, engineering
and manufacturing body-worn devices.  In addition to its
operations in Minnesota, the Company has facilities in Maine,
California, Singapore and Germany.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Increases Reserve by $2.10MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Under to the requirements of the Accounting Standards
Certification, Kaiser Ventures LLC has increased, during the third
quarter of 2010, its environmental reserve by US$2,104,000 to
account for new conditional obligation estimates and increased the
carrying amount of the associated structures at Eagle Mountain by
a comparable amount.

In 2005, the Company adopted FIN 47 (now superseded by ASC 410
Accounting for Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations) and
recorded a US$1.2 million increase in its environmental
remediation reserves to cover the conditional asset retirement
obligations relating to possible future abatement for asbestos-
containing products in the structures at Eagle Mountain and
concurrently recorded, as a long-term asset, the same amount.

This long-term asset was fully depreciated as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based upon new information, the Company now estimates that such
conditional asset retirement obligations relating to possible
future abatement for asbestos-containing products in the
structures at Eagle Mountain total US$3,304,000.

This estimate was based on information provided by third party
contractors knowledgeable about the structures at Eagle Mountain.

This increased cost basis will be depreciated over the remaining
estimated time that such assets will be owned by the Company,
which is currently estimated to be about five years beginning with
the fourth quarter of 2010.

Headquartered in Ontario, Calif., Kaiser Ventures LLC is the
reorganized successor to Kaiser Steel Corporation, which was an
integrated steel manufacturer, after KSC's bankruptcy.  The
Company has been developing assets remaining after the bankruptcy
and has realized substantial value from certain of those assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. VWR Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc. is involved in various legal and regulatory
cases, claims, assessments and inquiries, which include being
named from time to time as a defendant in cases as a result of its
distribution of laboratory supplies, including litigation
resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products
containing asbestos by certain of its predecessors or acquired
companies.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Radnor, Pa.-based VWR Funding, Inc. distributes laboratory
supplies, including chemicals, glassware, equipment, instruments,
protective clothing, production supplies and other assorted
laboratory products, primarily in North America and Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as
defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure
to asbestos.

While there have been only a few such cases that name the Company,
there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against
D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).  Cases against
the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations
in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American
& Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center.

No other purported party was served.  In the eight-count complaint
for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of
unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court
might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to
whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal
injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing
products.

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able
to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy
or policies is needed.

Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and
obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not
obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the
amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred
unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and
reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of
cooperation with plaintiff.

D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.  In order to fund
such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.

In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000.  Such settlement amount
was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed a voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 07-12776) in
July 2007.  The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C
with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008.

Prior to the deadline, the Company filed claims that aggregated
about US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured
intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company.  In addition, a
personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents
clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on
behalf of about 700 claimants.

Headquartered in Chicago, Kaanapali Land, LLC's continuing
operations are in two business segments: Agriculture and Property.
The Agriculture segment grows seed corn and soybeans under
contract and is engaged in farming and milling operations relating
to the coffee orchards on behalf of the applicable land owners.
The Property segment primarily develops land for sale and
negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 76 Injury Actions Ongoing v. Belden at Oct. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc., as of Oct. 27, 2010, is party to legal proceedings
and administrative actions, including 76 asbestos personal injury
cases, in which it is one of many defendants.

As of July 26, 2010, the Company faced 86 asbestos-related
personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2010)

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Illinois and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.  Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products
more than 20 years ago.

Through Oct. 27, 2010, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 395 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with a relatively small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and
markets cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets
including industrial automation, enterprise, transportation,
infrastructure, and consumer electronics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Remains Party to Cryovac Deal Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation, since the beginning of 2000, has been
served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the
Cryovac transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged
asbestos liabilities of W. R. Grace & Co. and its subsidiaries,
some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these
actions.

Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a
number of personal injury lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages
for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.

Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever
produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that are
the subjects of these cases.  None of these cases has reached
resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise.

In view of Grace's Chapter 11 filing, the Company may receive
additional claims asserting that the Company is liable for
obligations that Grace had agreed to retain in the Cryovac
transaction and for which the Company may be contingently liable.
To date, the Company is not aware of any material claims having
been asserted or threatened against it.

Final determinations and accountings under the Cryovac transaction
agreements with respect to matters pertaining to the transaction
had not been completed at the time of Grace's Chapter 11 filing in
2001.

The Company has filed claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that
reflect the costs and liabilities that it has incurred or may
incur that Grace and its affiliates agreed to retain or that are
subject to indemnification by Grace and its affiliates under the
Cryovac transaction agreements, other than payments to be made
under the Settlement agreement.

Grace has alleged that the Company is responsible for specified
amounts under the Cryovac transaction agreements.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial,
medical and consumer applications.  The Company has business
operations in 51 countries and sells products under brands like
Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak
foam-in-place systems and Cryovac packaging technology.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air (Canada) Facing Thundersky's Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's Canadian subsidiary, Sealed Air (Canada)
Co./Cie, since 2004, is a defendant in an asbestos case styled
Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No.
CI04-01-39818).

The case is pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.  W. R.
Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. are also named as
defendants.  The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

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

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

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

That order has been renewed repeatedly.  In November 2005, upon
motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an
extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos
against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney
General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the
Canadian actions.  The parties finalized a global settlement of
these Canadian actions (except for claims against the Canadian
government).  That settlement, which has subsequently been amended
(the "Canadian Settlement") will be entirely funded by Grace.

The Canadian Court issued an Order on Dec. 13, 2009 approving the
Canadian Settlement. The Company does not have any positive
obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but it is a beneficiary
of the release of claims.

The release in favor of the Grace parties (including the Company)
will become operative upon the effective date of a plan of
reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding.  As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that
the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject
to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.

By its terms, the Canadian Settlement will, unless amended, become
null and void if a confirmation order in the Grace U.S. bankruptcy
proceeding is not granted prior to Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial,
medical and consumer applications.  The Company has business
operations in 51 countries and sells products under brands like
Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak
foam-in-place systems and Cryovac packaging technology.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2010, there
existed five plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of
asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by Hilco, Inc.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Subsequent to Sept. 30, 2010, one plantiff filed an action, which
results in six remaining plantiffs in these lawsuits.  The Company
never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of Sept. 30, 2010, three filed
actions in 2010 and two filed actions in 2009.  There are 207
other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 16
other plaintiffs that have settled as of Sept. 30, 2010 for a
total of US$3,361,500.

There has been no judgment against Hilco.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.
distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems,
appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies,
primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of
eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Faces 1 Exposure Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and
settled asbestos-related actions, there existed one plaintiff that
names subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc. as of Sept. 30,
2010.

Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs; of these, one filed an
action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in
2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one
filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500.  No money
was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.
distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems,
appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies,
primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of
eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers Sept. 30 A&E Liability at $2.44MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Millers Holding Corporation's estimated liability for
asbestos and environmental claims was US$2,439,000 at Sept. 30,
2010 and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.

A substantial portion of the liability results from the Company's
participation in assumed reinsurance pools.

The Company's estimated liability for A&E claims was US$2,301,000
at June 30, 2010 and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

Headquartered in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Penn Millers Holding
Corporation provides property and casualty insurance products
designed to meet the insurance needs of certain segments of the
agricultural industry and the needs of middle market commercial
businesses.  The Company is licensed in 39 states, but it
currently limits its sales of its insurance products to 33 states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker, Ariz. to Get $56T Grant for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality officials, on Nov. 29,
2010, announced that a US$56,000 grant has been awarded to the
Town of Parker for the cleanup of small quantities of asbestos in
three town buildings, which the town wants to bring in compliance
with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, according to an
ADEQ press release dated Nov. 29, 2010.

Parker received a community development block grant for the
barrier removal project, to make the buildings more accessible for
the handicapped, but funds from that grant can not be used for
asbestos cleanup.  The work will be performed at the town
hall/police station, the library and the community/senior center.

ADEQ Director Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "We commend the Town of
Parker for taking action to accommodate all of its residents and
redeveloping in an environmentally sensitive manner.  Our state
response grant program is all about partnering with towns like
Parker to reduce environmental hazards."

Town officials have said the asbestos in the structures is stable
and does not pose a health hazard.  The buildings were constructed
between the mid-1960s and 1983, when asbestos was used as a common
material for insulation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Govt. to Boost Asbestos Payments to AU$311T
----------------------------------------------------------------
New South Wales Finance Minister Michael Daley, on Nov. 30, 2010,
flagged an asbestos compensation increase from AU$245,700 to
AU$311,050, which the government pays to families of workers who
died due to asbestos exposure, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Mr. Daley adds the increase would be staged over two years.  He
says, "Supporting the families of workers killed because of an
asbestos or other dust disease is important for this government
and we want to make sure their compensation is adequate."

The legislation would be introduced soon and the final sitting
week of parliament before the March 2011 state election.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitchells & Butlers Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd, a major pub operator in the United
Kingdom, has been fined after three electricians and two plumbers
were exposed to asbestos during refurbishment works at a
Darlington, England, pub, according to a Health and Safety
Executive press release dated Nov. 26, 2010.

Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd was refurbishing the vacant White
Horse pub on Harrowgate Hill in Darlington, when the construction
workers were potentially exposed to deadly asbestos fibers.

An HSE investigation found that the Company had commissioned a
survey to check for the presence of asbestos in June 2007, but it
was restricted to those areas where the proposed refurbishment
works were to be carried out.  The refurbishment plans were then
changed before work started.

Bishop Auckland Magistrates' Court heard how on Sept. 28, 2007,
the electricians and plumbers started work in a kitchen area,
which had not been included in the original survey.

The ceiling tiles in the kitchen contained asbestos, which meant
that when the workers drilled into them with power tools, in
preparation for new electrics and plumbing, dust and debris
covered their faces and clothing, potentially exposing them to
asbestos fibers.

Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd, of Fleet Street, Birmingham was
fined a total of GBP14,001 after pleading guilty to breaching
Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and
Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and
ordered to pay costs of GBP11,781.45.

HSE Inspector Victoria Wise said, "Construction and maintenance
workers are among those most at risk from asbestos-related
diseases due to the nature of their work.  Asbestos is still
widely present in buildings constructed prior to 2000, so workers
can often inadvertently disturb materials containing asbestos if
the correct survey has not been carried out to check for its
presence and appropriate control measures put in place.

"Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd knew there was asbestos in the
building and should have ensured that all the areas where work was
to be done had been checked for asbestos and the necessary
precautions taken.

"Everyone who owns or operates commercial premises built prior to
2000 must ensure that a suitable and sufficient assessment for
asbestos has been carried out prior to any construction work
starting.

"In addition construction and maintenance workers should have
asbestos awareness training so that they can recognize that some
materials may contain asbestos and know what action to take."

Among the workers exposed was 38-year-old Jonathan Cook from
Cleethorpes.  He said, "Because the effects of asbestos take a
long time to show up, the worry of whether the asbestos has caused
lasting damage to my health will stay with me for years to come.

"And it's not just me -- it's a huge worry for my partner also, as
there is a chance that she might have been exposed to fibers that
were brought home on my work clothes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guy, Brock May Be Liable for $1MM in Legal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Guy, Esq., and Thomas Brock, Esq., who were found to have
committed fraud during asbestos litigation, may be on the hook for
nearly US$1 million in legal fees incurred by Illinois Central
Railroad, which filed a fraud suit against the two men in November
2006, Legal Newsline.com reports.

Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock have already been ordered to return
US$210,000 in settlements and give another US$210,000 in punitive
damages to Illinois Central Railroad.

Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock, who were found by a federal jury in March
2010 to have hidden two of their clients' previous involvements in
an asbestos mass action, spent nearly US$800,000 on their own
defense.

U.S. District Judge David Bramlette ordered an accounting of
attorneys' fees from both sides earlier in November 2010 after
Illinois Central had moved to have its fees paid by Mr. Guy and
Mr. Brock.

Judge Bramlette says, according to state law, the most useful
starting point is determining if the amount of hours worked by the
attorneys and if the per-hour fees charged were reasonable.

Illinois Central hired Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy of
Jackson, Miss., to pursue the case.  The firm spent 3,411 hours on
the case of Willie Harried and 2,320 on the case of Warren Turner.
They are the two men who sued Illinois Central in 2001.

The answers on their questionnaires submitted to the Company did
not disclose their previous involvements years earlier in the mass
action.  All totaled, the Forman firm spent 5,731 hours on the
case and charged Illinois Central US$958,857, an average charge of
US$167 per hour.

By comparison, the defendants were charged US$713,549 by their
attorneys at Corlew Munford & Smith in Jackson.  They billed 2,532
hours for an average per-hour fee of US$282, about US$115 more per
hour than Illinois Central's attorneys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Action v. 82 Firms Filed Nov. 10 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Last Nov. 10, 2010, Rick Reed and Ruth Reed, co-executors of the
Estate of Willie Oliver Reed filed an asbestos lawsuit against 3M
Company; Alloy Cast Steel Company; A.W. Chesterton Company et al
in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Willie Oliver Reed was diagnosed with asbestosis and died on
Nov. 12, 2009.  The plaintiffs claim the 82 defendants are
responsible for Willie Oliver Reed's lung disease and death.  They
seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.

Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represents the Reeds.  Case No. 10-C-
2027 will be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $15,600 Fine on Unlicensed Projects
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued two
separate penalties totaling US$15,600 in connection with an
unlicensed asbestos removal project at a rental residence in
Independence in September 2010, according to an Oregon DEQ press
release dated Nov. 29, 2010.

DEQ issued an US$8,400 penalty to Paul Kay Reiter, of 341 D St.,
Independence, Ore., for allowing an unlicensed contractor to
perform an asbestos abatement project on the rental home he owns
at 365 Marsh St.

About 1,200 square feet of asbestos-containing cement asbestos
board siding was removed and shattered at the residence on
Sept. 23, 2010.  Mr. Reiter allowed Independence contractor and
resident Todd Lorenz Tolzmann, who does not have a license to
perform such work, to conduct the asbestos removal.

As owner of the home, Mr. Reiter was responsible for ensuring that
all asbestos was properly handled and disposed of.

DEQ also penalized Mr. Tolzmann US$7,200 for performing an
asbestos abatement project without first obtaining the required
license from DEQ.  Mr. Tolzmann's removal of the siding did not
comply with state asbestos regulations and likely caused the
release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.

Additionally, Mr. Tolzmann left the shattered asbestos-containing
siding on the ground outside the home and unpackaged, causing the
potential for further release of asbestos fibers into the
atmosphere.

DEQ also cited Mr. Reiter and Mr. Tolzmann for openly accumulating
asbestos-containing waste material, but did not issue penalties
for these violations.

Mr. Reiter's deadline to appeal is Dec. 7, 2010.  Mr. Tolzmann
appealed his penalty on Nov. 29, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tower Hamlets Councilor's Death Due to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Gloucestershire, England, heard that the death of
John Marshall, a former Tower Hamlets councilor, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, this is Gloucestershire.com
reports.

Alan Crickmore, Gloucestershire coroner, heard that Mr. Marshall
came into contact with asbestos on many occasions at a time when
no one knew of the dangers.  Mr. Marshall, of Up Hatherley,
Cheltenham, England, died at the age of 83 in Cheltenham's Sue
Ryder Care Centre in August 2009.  His widow, Joan, said a scan in
2009 showed he had an asbestos-related lung cancer.

Former workmate William Hicks confirmed he had worked with Mr.
Marshall and that they had regularly worked with or removed
asbestos without any protective masks or overalls.

Clinical oncologist at Cheltenham General Hospital, Dr. Peter
Jenkins, said when he first saw Mr. Marshall a CT scan had found a
plaque-like mass in the left lung.  He said, "Malignant
mesothelioma was diagnosed and there were calcified plaques
present in keeping with asbestos exposure."

Pathologist Dr. Keith McCarthy found a large number of asbestos
fibers in Mr. Marshall's lungs, but he did not see evidence of
malignancy in the lung.  He added, "I felt that the mesothelioma
was not of a size which could account for his death."

However, two expert witnesses called by the coroner disagreed with
this finding.  Dr. Simon Sirvana, a specialist in diseases caused
by asbestos, based in Sheffield, said small blood clots in the
lungs were related to, and indirectly caused by, the tumor.

Professor Andrew Nicholson, of the Royal Brompton Hospital and
Imperial College London, said the mesothelioma was difficult to
diagnose but he saw 20 to 30 similar cases each year.

Mr. Crickmore said features had been found before death in keeping
with mesothelioma and Mr. Marshall had certainly been exposed to
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Facility on Duwamish Site Needs Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
The first and possibly most important stage in the demolition
process of old Boeing Plant 2, which runs along Seattle's Duwamish
Waterway, is the removal of asbestos-containing siding,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The goal is to bring back the half-mile stretch of natural
riverbank now that Boeing has moved out of town.  Screening off
scaffolding has to be erected to keep asbestos material out of the
water.

Protecting the Duwamish Waterway from asbestos contamination is
important to protecting both the environment and local health.

Boeing's senior environmental remediation manager Steven Tochko
said that the project is combining demolition, waterway cleanup
and habitat restoration in a single project.  Parts of the plant
are now 74 years old, and it has not been used for decades, so the
building in a ruinous condition.

Boeing's corporate historian Mike Lombardi said that museums are
being allowed into the factory to take whatever they feel will
help tell Boeing's story.

There have been discussions with the Museum of Flight, the Museum
of History and Industry, the Washington State History Museum in
Tacoma, Wash., and others regarding the public exhibition of
doors, columns, signs and other pieces of the plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Lawyer Gets $9.25MM for Newport News Client
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hatten, Esq., of Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein has
recovered US$9.25 million on behalf of a former Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock machinist who passed away from
mesothelioma in 2006, according to a Patten, Wornom, Hatten &
Diamonstein press release dated Nov. 30, 2010.

The unnamed mesothelioma victim was exposed to asbestos during the
1960s, when he worked to install asbestos packing and gaskets in
ships' engine rooms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Family Investigates Death Due to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Denis Cook, who died because of mesothelioma, is
trying to shed light on how he became exposed to asbestos, the
Watford Observer reports.

Mr. Cook was 85 years old when he died on Nov. 12, 2009, at the
Peace Hospice, Watford, after succumbing to mesothelioma.  His
widow, Joan, now hopes to find out when, where and how Mr. Cook
came into contact with asbestos dust.

Speaking about the death of his father, Denis' son Stuart said,
"It was a very short term illness and was a very big shock to the
family at the time.  My mother is now 80 years old and she is
doing well considering the circumstances."

Stuart said although the family now lives in Croxley Green, Denis
Cook worked primarily around the Heathrow/London area, but
unfortunately official employment records only go back 50 years.

Denis Cook spent much of his working life in the London and South
East area.  After the war, Denis worked for the Ministry of Works
in London and after that spent time in construction work as a
carpenter with companies including Taylor Woodrow.

Denis Cook went on to work for a builders' merchants type business
with depots across the south.  This work, with Merchant Trading
Limited, continued until 1966 until he took a job as a machine
technician with Technicolor.  From 1974 until his retirement in
1989, Denis Cook was senior storekeeper for Colne Valley Water
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Govt. Reaffirms Obligation to Combat Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Australia's Minister for Industrial Relations, Paul
Holloway, on Nov. 28, 2001, used the 10th annual Asbestos Memorial
Day to reaffirm the South Australian Government's commitment to
combating the ongoing harm created by asbestos, TTKN News reports.

Mr. Holloway told a memorial service at Jack Watkins Park at
Kilburn that from Jan. 31, 2011, proceedings in the Dust Diseases
List of the District Court will be heard by Judges in the
Industrial Relations Court.

Mr. Holloway also released the second annual progress report of
the Asbestos Safety Action Plan.  He said, "This Plan is now two
years old, and aims to reduce illness and disease caused by
exposure to asbestos, by providing a single, coordinated framework
to safely identify, manage and remove asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Dismissal in Reaser Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the ruling of the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, which dismissed a Christine
Reaser's wrongful-death lawsuit on forum non conveniens grounds
rather than granting a stay while a jurisdictional question is
resolved.

In an unpublished opinion, the Appeals Court said the trial court
correctly found that a suitable alternative forum existed but
should have stayed rather than dismissed the action.  Mrs. Reaser
sued several companies, alleging her husband, Robert Reaser, died
of mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos products while
serving in the Navy for two decades.

An action Mrs. Reaser filed against the same defendants in Florida
had been removed to federal court and is pending there.

A.W. Chesterton moved to dismiss the California case on forum non
conveniens grounds, noting the Reasers had lived in Florida from
Mr. Reaser's 1971 retirement from the Navy until his death in
2008.

Mrs. Reaser opposed the motion, saying the defendants did not show
that Florida was a suitable alternative forum.  She noted that
Hill Bros. Chemical Co. had filed an affidavit in the Florida
action, asserting it was not subject to personal jurisdiction
there.  Mrs. Reaser appealed.

The appeals court noted that if the case is resolved in another
jurisdiction, the stayed action would be dismissed.  However, if
the plaintiff cannot obtain relief in another forum, a stay
entitles her to pursue her claims in California.  The panel
reversed and remanded.

Mrs. Reaser's attorney was Brian P. Barrow, Esq., of Simon, Eddins
& Greenstone in Long Beach, Calif.

Hill Bros. attorneys were Ruth Segal, Esq., Ryan M. Terschluse,
Esq., and Rosemary H. Do, Esq., of Lynberg & Watkins in Los
Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Valhalla Apartments in Edmonton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of downtown residents seek temporary shelter after a high
rise fire at the Valhalla Apartments in Edmonton, Canada, led to
the discovery of asbestos, Metro reports.

The discovery was made in the drywall during inspections following
the Nov. 23, 2010 fire, which destroyed two suites at the Valhalla
Apartments.  All residents of the building, located at 113 Street
and 99 Avenue, have been told they will need to find other
accommodations until it can be removed.

Jeannie Lloyd lives on the 14th floor with her daughter.  She
found out during a meeting held at a nearby church that she would
have to move somewhere else.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates Board Decision in Clark
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Feb. 5,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals in a case involving
asbestos styled Larry S. Clark, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 09-1268 on Oct. 29,
2010.

The pro se appellant, Larry S. Clark, appealed the Board ruling,
which denied entitlement to service connection for (1)
degenerative bone or joint disease, claimed as due to exposure to
asbestos and/or ionizing radiation; (2) psychosis, claimed as due
to exposure to asbestos; (3) residuals of a head injury; (4)
residuals of exposure to asbestos; and (5) residuals of exposure
to ionizing radiation.

Mr. Clark filed an informal brief, and the Secretary filed a
brief.  This appeal was timely.  The matters were remanded for
readjudication consistent with this decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies Petition in Stonewall Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, denied a
petition in a case involving asbestos styled Stonewall Insurance
Company, Petitioner v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Respondent; Fuller-Austin Insulation Company, Real Party In
Interest.

The Panel entered judgment in Case No. B223251 on Nov. 1, 2010.

In 1994, Fuller-Austin Insulation Company filed a declaratory
relief action against about 20 excess insurance carriers to
establish coverage for asbestos-related personal injury claims.
Throughout the past 16 years, all defendants but one, Stonewall
Insurance, have been dismissed from the case.

The case is awaiting retrial following this court's opinion in
Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co. (2006) 135
Cal.App.4th 958, in which the Appeal Court affirmed in part and
reversed in part a judgment entered following a phased bench and
jury trial.

The trial court in the first trial ruled that Fuller-Austin's
primary umbrella policies were exhausted as a matter of law as the
result of settlement payments by primary insurers.  In
anticipation of the retrial, Fuller-Austin filed a motion in
limine to prohibit Stonewall, an excess insurer, from presenting
evidence or argument challenging the exhaustion of the umbrella
policies.  The Appeal Court held that the respondent court
correctly granted the motion.  Accordingly, the Appeal Court
denied the petition.

From the mid-1940s to the mid 1980s, Fuller-Austin was in the
business of installing and removing building materials containing
asbestos.  Dynalectron Corp. acquired Fuller-Austin in 1974.
Fuller-Austin continued to operate as a subsidiary of DynCorp
until it ceased operations in 1987.

In the late 1980s, Fuller-Austin began to face thousands of
asbestos-related personal injury claims.  The number of claims
escalated sharply in the early 1990s.  Fuller-Austin tendered the
claims to its primary general liability insurance carriers, who
defended the claims until Fuller-Austin filed for bankruptcy in
1998.

The petition for writ of mandate was denied and a stay order
issued June 23, 2010 was vacated.  Costs of this proceeding are
awarded to Fuller-Austin.

Musik, Peeler & Garrett LLP (Susan J. Field, Esq., Kenneth G.
Katel, Esq., and Jennifer M. Kokes, Esq.) represented Petitioner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Indicted on Asbestos Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petra Bond, the co-owner of a North Devon, England, scrap yard and
skip hire company has been sent to prison for nine months for
illegally burning and burying waste including asbestos at a site
near Bideford, according to an Environment Agency press release
dated Dec. 1, 2010.

The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

The 66-year-old Mrs. Bond, from Shebbear was sentenced at Exeter
Crown Court on Dec. 1, 2010.  Her son and business partner, the
40-year-old Julian Goddard was ordered to pay a total of GBP7,750
in fines and costs.  The pair, who ran Auto Disposals and Bideford
Skip Hire, had been convicted of a series of waste offences after
a five day trial in Exeter in November 2010.

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

Following the last fire, Mrs. Bond is alleged to have told the
same employee to get rid of the fire-damaged wastes as quickly as
possible to "cut costs."  She instructed him to take it to an
adjoining property, Goodleigh Cottage, excavate a hole and bury it
in an area just behind a wall.  It is estimated the damaged shed
contained around 15 tons of bonded asbestos of which only 1.8 tons
could be accounted for by Mrs. Bond.

A second consignment of asbestos, stored on several pallets, was
buried in a corner of the waste transfer station to allow a car
park to be constructed.  Once again, this was done on the
instruction of Mrs. Bond.

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

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

The court heard how the defendants had denied the Environment
Agency access to the site on a number of occasions during the
investigation and had been unhelpful and obstructive.  Eventually
the Agency used its powers under the Section 108 of the
Environment Act to enter the site.  A magistrate's warrant was
issued and on May 29, 2008 a team of Agency officers gained access
and carried out a full site investigation.  Further excavations
under a court warrant were undertaken in March 2009.

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

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

Mrs. Bond, of Aish Park, Shebbear received a custodial sentence
after admitting two waste offenses and being found guilty of
another four offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
and Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 including burying
oil contaminated waste, mixed waste and asbestos at the premises
of Auto Disposal and Bideford Skip Hire.

Mr. Goddard was fined GBP3,750 and ordered to pay GBP4,000 costs
after being found guilty to two offences under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.

The investigation was carried out by the Environment Agency's
regional Environmental Crime Team.  Solicitors acting for the
Environment Agency will be making a Proceeds of Crime Application.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honda Ordered to Pay JPY54MM in Asbestos Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 1, 2010, Honda Motor Co. was ordered to pay JPY54 million
in compensation to 61-year-old Hidenari Hane, a former mechanic
who claimed he suffered mesothelioma after being exposed to
asbestos while working at a factory of Honda's subsidiary in
Nagoya from April 1968 to December 1969, Japan Today reports.

In handing down the ruling at the Tokyo District Court, Presiding
Judge Koichiro Matsumoto said, "The risks of being exposed to
asbestos had been known by the time the pneumoconiosis law was
enacted in 1960 at the latest, and a major company like Honda
should have been fully aware of the risks and the damages at the
factory were foreseeable."

Judge Matsumoto also said that Honda had "the obligation to take
such measures as prohibiting workers to spray air around brake
drums, which use asbestos, for cleaning, so as to prevent the
spread of dust, or to order them to wear masks."

It is rare that asbestos-related damages have been recognized in a
case involving an automaker.  Honda plans to appeal the sentence.

Mr. Hane was diagnosed in 2007 as having mesothelioma, and the
labor standards inspection office in Nagoya also recognized that
he deserves worker's compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carper Action v. Honeywell, John Crane Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Othella Carper, on Nov. 17, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against Honeywell International Inc. and John Crane in St. Clair
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In her suit, Mrs. Carper claims her recently deceased father Paul
Towell's exposure to asbestos began when he worked as a
pipefitter, welder and carpenter at various locations beginning in
the 1940s.

In her complaint, Mrs. Carper alleges Honeywell and John Crane
caused Mr. Towell to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.  Mr. Towell
died on June 30, 1999.

In her six-count complaint, Mrs. Carper seeks a judgment of more
than US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000 and
compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, plus costs and other
relief the court deems just.  She also seeks punitive damages in
an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to deter similar
conduct in the future.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Carper in Case No.
10-L-603.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Welcomes News on Mesothelioma Awareness
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 29, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously
passed House Resolution 771, which annually recognizes Sept. 26 as
National Mesothelioma Day, according to a Simmons Law Firm press
release dated Dec. 1, 2010.

As a long time advocate for patients and families affected by
mesothelioma, the Simmons law firm is pleased to observe this
victory with clients, their families and the mesothelioma
community.

Mike Angelides, Simmons firm managing partner, said, "The passage
of House Res. 771 creates a powerful tool that will help raise
awareness about mesothelioma and the dangers of exposure to
asbestos.

"Nearly 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year,
and the more we can do to promote awareness about this deadly
cancer, the better chance we have of fully banning asbestos and
advancing critical medical research."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Suit v. Chevron, BP Transferred to MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed against Chevron USA and BP Products
North America has been transferred to a multidistrict litigation
panel in Harris County, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Kathleen Trahan and Chris Trahan, on behalf of Emery Trahan, sued
Chevron in April for his death, claiming the company allowed him
to work around asbestos-containing products which caused him to
develop lung cancer.  Court records show that BP was later added
as defendant.

The Trahans claim Emery Trahan worked as a helper, electrician and
operator at Gulf Oil Corp.'s Port Arthur facility, which is now
owned by Chevron.

They allege that during his career, Emery Trahan worked near
asbestos dust and fibers, causing him to develop lung cancer.  He
died from the disease on Oct. 24, 2008.

BP attorney Thomas Taylor, Esq., of the Houston law firm Andrews
Kurth, filed the notice of transfer under rule 13 of tag-along
case on Sept. 22, 2010, court records show.

Judge Mark Davidson, 11th District Court, presides over the
asbestos case MDL.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont
represents them in Case No. E186-552.

Eventually, the case will be transferred back to Judge Donald
Floyd, 172nd District Court, for trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Facing 11,300 Actions at Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company says that, as of Sept. 24, 2010,
there were about 11,300 asbestos liability cases pending against
its subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., according to the Company's
annual report filed on Nov. 22, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of June 25, 2010, there were about 11,100 asbestos liability
cases pending against Mallinckrodt.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 6, 2010)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
incorporating asbestos.  A limited number of the cases allege
premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed
to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property.

Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in
addition to Mallinckrodt.  The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Covidien Public Limited Company
develops, manufactures and sells healthcare products for use in
clinical and home settings.  Its products are found in almost
every hospital in the United States, and the Company has a
significant and growing presence in non-U.S. markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx's Long-Term Reserve at $39.5M in Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's long-term reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$39.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$44 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's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$41 million as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
10, 2010)

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$6.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$8 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.  The Company also
enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 202 Actions Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation faced 202 pending asbestos cases as of Sept. 30,
2010 and 239 pending cases 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 faced 215 pending asbestos cases as of June 30, 2010.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010)

Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related
to asbestos exposure.

Some of these claims are now being brought by the children and
close relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result of
the direct or indirect exposure to asbestos.  To date all of the
Company's asbestos-related injury claims have been paid and
defended by its insurance carriers.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
100 new cases initiated, 96 defense judgments and dismissals, 41
plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 137 resolved cases.
The average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled
cases were US$81,268 and the average indemnity paid on all
resolved cases was US$24,321.  Total indemnity payments were
US$3,332,000.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 188 new
cases initiated, 168 defense judgments and dismissals, 52
plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 220 resolved cases.
The average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled
cases were US$102,788 and the average indemnity paid on all
resolved cases was US$24,295.  Total indemnity payments were
US$5,345,000.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.  The Company also
enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Posts $46MM Insurance Coverage at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation has determined that the minimum probable
insurance coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury
claims exceeds its estimated future liability for such claims
of US$46 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$52 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

The minimum probable insurance coverage available to satisfy
asbestos-related injury claims exceeded the Company's estimated
future liability for such claims of US$48 million as of June 30,
2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010)

This determination assumes that the general trend of reducing
asbestos-related injury claims experienced prior to 2006 will
resume and that the average indemnity and direct legal costs of
each resolved claim will not materially increase.

The determination also assumes that the insurance companies remain
solvent and live up to what the Company believes is their
obligation to continue to cover its exposure with regards to these
claims.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.  The Company also
enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Action Still Ongoing v. Metalclad in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corporation,
is still involved in asbestos insurance coverage litigation filed
by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central National Insurance
Company of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company.

On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE, Central National and Industrial, which are
all related entities, filed a declaratory relief lawsuit (the ACE
Lawsuit) against Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other
liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the
asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last four
to five years.  The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a
variety of coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues
involving whether historical and currently pending asbestos
lawsuits brought against Metalclad are subject to either an
"aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence"
limits of liability.

Whether any particular asbestos lawsuit is properly classified as
being subject to an aggregate limit of liability depends upon
whether or not the suit falls within the "products" or "completed
operations" hazards found in most of the liability policies issued
to Metalclad.  The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery
from Metalclad.  The ACE Lawsuit is principally about coverage
responsibility among the several insurers, as well as total
coverage.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of a June 2004
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of
Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy.  Under the settlement agreement the Company
received US$2,500,000 from Allstate in consideration of releasing
Allstate from a potential liability under a US$5,000,000 limits
insurance policy.  The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company's
incurring costs in connection with obligations the Company may
have to indemnify Allstate under that settlement agreement.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad Insulation
Corporation in October 2005, asked the court to determine the
Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate
in the ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations
in the settlement agreement.

The Company does not believe that it has any legal obligation to
assume or pay for such defense.  If Allstate is required to
provide indemnity for the Company's asbestos-related lawsuits, it
is likely that the Company would have to indemnify Allstate for
asbestos-related claims that it defends up to US$2,500,000 in the
aggregate.

If Allstate is not required to provide indemnity, the Company
would have no liability to Allstate.  The Company has accrued
US$375,000 as a potential loss in connection with the Allstate
matter.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.  The Company also
enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.

                             *********

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, Neil U. Lim, 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  * * *