CAR_Public/101210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 244

                             Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks $18.75 Million Payday Loan Settlement
AVIAT NETWORKS: Class Action Suit in Delaware Still Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Underwood Firm Sues Over Mortgage Foreclosures
BECHTEL CORPORATION: Inks $18.5 Million ERISA Settlement
BENDIGO BANK: Supreme Court Rejects Class Action for Second Time

BEXAR COUNTY: Settles Strip-Search Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Seeks Testimony From Expert in ERISA Class Action
CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in N.J. of Not Paying Overtime
CALUMET CITY: Sued for Violations of Freedom of Speech Rights
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Network Malfunction

CHARLES SCHWAB: Law Firm Reopens Probe on YieldPlus Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Scherek" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Still Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: American Export Antitrust Suit Still Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Dealer Lawsuit Still Pending

GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Analog Equipment Litigation Still Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Dropped From Unintended Acceleration Class Suit
GENERAL WAX: Recalls 12,000 Silver Metallic Pillar Candles
GENOPTIX INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
GT SOLAR: Discovery in "Braun" Suit Ongoing

GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Suit Still Pending in New Hampshire
ISILON SYSTEMS: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to EMC Corporation
LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Accessibility Reviewed After Class Settlement
MDL 1775: Four Air Cargo Carriers Agree to Pay $118 Million

MEYER CORPORATION: Recalls 59,000 Quart Teakettle
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Loan Interest Rates
REED ELSEVIER: Judge Allows Lexis-Nexis Class Suit to Proceed
SERVICE CORPORATION: Accused of Discriminating Against Blacks

SONIC SOLUTIONS: Negotiates Tentative Deal to Resolve DivX Suit
ST. JOE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
STEVE MADDEN: To Submit MOU for Court Approval Next Year
SYNGENTA CROP: Court Gets Discovery Order Appeal in Class Suit
TARGET CORP: Recalls 1,500 Circo Children's Space Camp Combo Pack

UNITED STATES: Native Americans in Class Suit Face Long Wait
WASHINGTON COUNTY: Juvenile Center Faces Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Global Power Named a Defendant in Injury Actions
ASBESTOS ALERT: U.S. Auto Parts Network Unit Has Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Cites $900,000 for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 18 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,425 Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces 190 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,000 Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Zurn at Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Case v. Ballantyne Strong Filed Aug. 17

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Scott Lawsuit in Ohio
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Jansen Lawsuit in Wis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Facing 300 Injury Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Indus. Still Faces to 11 Cases in Alabama
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Still Subject to 2.8T Sterling Fluid Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Facing 90 Active Lawsuits at Oct. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI's Liabilities Still at $17.7Mil at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,237 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Named in Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Still Subject to Asbestos Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 83T Claims Pending v. Ashland Inc. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Still Facing 20,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Posts $66MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Claims Pending v. Maremont at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Has Rockwell Int'l. Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Fuel Has $101MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WGL Holdings Has $174.5MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Subject to Respirator Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Refining Co. Posts $400,000 for Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Facing 97 Open Actions at Dec. 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Issues $51T Fine v. David H. Koch Theater
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scranton Property Owner to Follow Cleanup Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aston University Penalized for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moore's Case for Compensation Ongoing in London
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standby Facility of AU$320MM for AICF Formalized

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Downer EDI to Pay Workers While Hazard Removed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Shipyards to Pay Fenech Family EUR103,114
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Environmental Exposure" Ruled in Tuck's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $18T Fine for Logan Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NPWS, BMCC Seek Info on Dump at Blue Mountains

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Govt. Seeks Inquiry on Asbestos at Molonglo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 53 New Lawsuits Filed in St. Clair as of Dec. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon State Hospital to Undergo Hazard Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Glan Clwys Hospital to Commence 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at North Queensland Schools Ongoing


                             *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks $18.75 Million Payday Loan Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU GOT A PAYDAY LOAN AT ANY OF THESE STORES IN NORTH CAROLINA
ON OR AFTER MARCH 1, 2003:

  * Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc.
  * Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
  * Advance America, Cash Advance Centers
  * Advance America
  * Advance America, Cash Advance
  * National Cash Advance
  * McKenzie Cash Advance of North Carolina, LLC

Please Read This Legal Notice -- It May Affect Your Rights

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit, Kucan v.
Advance America, case no. 04-CVS-2860 (New Hanover County).
Superior Court Judge D. Jack Hooks, Jr., will conduct a final
approval hearing on Monday, January 31, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. at the
New Hanover County Courthouse, 316 Princess Street, Wilmington,
North Carolina to decide whether to approve the proposed
settlement.

Additional information is available at
http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or by calling 1-866-
428-0429.

Who is in the Class?

The Class Members are: All persons who have entered into one or
more "Payday Loan" transactions at a North Carolina store at any
time on or after March 1, 2003, and who do not validly opt out of
the Class. A "Payday Loan" transaction is defined to mean cash
advances, deferred deposit check cashing disbursements, loans
(including installment loans and zero interest loans) or other
transactions, including those transactions in which any defendants
in this case marketed, serviced or processed a loan originated by
a third party, as a consequence of which a Class Member came to be
indebted in a consumer transaction conducted at a North Carolina
office doing business under the names "Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc.," "Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers, Inc.," "Advance America, Cash Advance Centers,"
"Advance America," "Advance America, Cash Advance," "National Cash
Advance," and "McKenzie Cash Advance of North Carolina, LLC."

What's the Case About?

The lawsuit claims that Advance America violated provisions of the
North Carolina Consumer Finance Act and other North Carolina laws.
Advance America denies the allegations. A copy of the Complaint is
available on the Web site
http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/

What Does the Settlement Provide?

If approved, the settlement will require Advance America to pay
$18.75 million into a settlement fund in three installments, the
last of which will be paid in January of 2012. In addition to
paying Class Members as described below, the settlement fund will
pay attorney fees and expenses approved by the Court. If the
attorneys fees and expenses expected to be requested are approved,
approximately $12 million will be available for distribution to
Class Members. Each Class Member who paid any payday or related
loan fees will receive at least one distribution/payment from the
settlement fund based on the ratio of the total fees paid by that
particular Class Member to the total amount of all fees paid by
all Class Members.

How Do You Qualify For A Payment?

To qualify for a payment, you do not need to do anything. If you
are a Class Member, a settlement administrator will mail you a
class notice. If you believe you are a Class Member and you do not
receive a class notice in the mail, this may mean that the
settlement administrator does not have your correct address. For
information on how to contact the settlement administrator visit
http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or call 1-866-428-0429.

The Final Approval Hearing The Court will hold a final approval
hearing in this case on Monday, January 31, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at
the New Hanover County Courthouse, 316 Princess Street,
Wilmington, North Carolina to consider whether to approve the
proposed settlement. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you
don't have to.

For more information about the hearing and your right to
participate visit http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or
call 1-866-428-0429.

What Else Will Be Considered at the Hearing?

At the hearing the Court is expected to consider a motion for
attorney fees in the amount of one-third of the settlement fund
($6.25 million), special fees for the two class representatives of
$20,000 each, and a request for the payment of expenses incurred
in prosecuting the case and administering the proposed settlement.
For further information about these matters visit
http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/or call 1-866-428-0429.

Class Members' Options.

If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself or opt-out from the Class by no later than
January 13, 2011.  If you exclude yourself, you can't get money
from this settlement. You may object to the settlement by no later
than January 13, 2011. You may also object to the attorneys' fees
request or any other aspect of the proceedings. You may obtain
instructions about how to exclude yourself or object to the
settlement by visiting http://www.NCAdvanceAmericaSettlement.com/
or calling 1-866-428-0429.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Carlene McNulty, Esq.
         N.C. Justice Center
         224 South Dawson St.
         P.O. Box 28068
         Raleigh, NC 27611

and the Defendants are represented by:

         Lewis Wiener, Esq.
         Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
         1275 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20004

Gilardi & Co. LLC serves as the settlement administrator in this
litigation.


AVIAT NETWORKS: Class Action Suit in Delaware Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action complaint filed in Delaware, according to its
November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

Aviat Networks and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors were named in a federal securities class
action complaint filed on September 15, 2008 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk
County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of Aviat Networks' securities from January 29, 2007 to
July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc.
who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for Aviat Networks'
shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the
Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation.

Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court
of Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008.  Each complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action
is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  The actions were
consolidated on June 5, 2009 and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.  On July 27, 2010, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss that Aviat Networks and the officer
and director defendants had filed.


BANK OF AMERICA: Underwood Firm Sues Over Mortgage Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baldwin County NOW reports a Fairhope law firm has filed a
lawsuit, which has evolved into a class action in Mobile federal
court, challenging mortgage foreclosures by Bank of America,
according to Earl Underwood, an attorney with the Underwood and
Riemer firm.

The case was brought on behalf of Kimberly George against Bank of
America and its subsidiary BAC Home Lending Services, according to
the firm's news release.

The claims arise from the servicing of a real estate mortgage loan
secured by George for property located in Mobile County, and the
lawsuit alleges the Bank of America wrongfully attempted to
foreclose on George's home.

"This case is similar to many we continue to see rising out of
misrepresentations and poor practices by mortgage companies
regarding the handling of federal money passed to them under
programs such as the 'Homeowner Affordability and Modification
Program' (HAMP), stated Kenneth J. Riemer, Partner, Underwood &
Riemer.   "When Bank of America accepted billions of dollars in
taxpayer bail out funds, it agreed to follow these HAMP rules,
which are designed to help struggling homeowners.  What we see in
the George case, and many others like it, is a systematic refusal
to follow these rules and a rush to foreclose when the homeowner
has done everything to hold up their side of the HAMP."

The case was filed in Mobile Circuit Court in October, which the
defendant then moved to federal district court in Mobile,
Underwood said.

The Fairhope firm has associated the National Consumer Law Center
as co-counsel and expect the case to be consolidated with other
similar cases filed in other states.


BECHTEL CORPORATION: Inks $18.5 Million ERISA Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
      Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement

      This Legal Notice May Affect Your Rights
             Please Read It Carefully

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding
the 401(k) plans sponsored by Bechtel Corporation that is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Who Is Included?

Class members include anyone who participated in the Bechtel Trust
& Thrift Plan and the Becon Trust & Thrift Plan (collectively, the
"Plans") from January 1, 1992, through September 30, 2010, as well
as their beneficiaries and alternate payees.

What Is The Case About?

The lawsuit was filed against Bechtel Corporation, Bechtel Trust &
Thrift Plan Committee, Fremont Investment Advisors, Inc., and
other defendants alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions.  On November 3, 2008, the Court granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims in the
lawsuit (except for a portion of one claim covering a four month
period, which claim has been resolved).  Plaintiffs have appealed
that decision.  While the parties have decided to settle the case,
the defendants adamantly deny any wrongdoing.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

The settlement, which must be approved by the court, creates an
$18.5 million settlement fund.  After payment of court approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, money will be distributed to the
members of the class based upon the length of participation in the
plans.  For current participants in the Plans, your portion will
be deposited in your 401(k) account.  For former participants or
beneficiaries who no longer participate in the Plans (as of
September 30, 2010), a check will be mailed to the address you
give to the Settlement Administrator (see below).

What Do You Need To Do?

If you participated in one of the Plans at any point in time
between January 1, 1992, and September 30, 2010 (or if you are the
beneficiary of someone who had an account in one of the 401(k)
Plans during this time)  and you no longer had an account balance
with one of the Plans as of September 30, 2010, you must submit a
claim form by January 19, 2011 in order to receive any settlement
payment.  Call or visit the Web site below to get a claim form and
obtain information about the proposed settlement.  Current
participants in the Plans (people with accounts in the Plans as of
September 30, 2010) do not need to submit a claim form; any amount
due to them will be deposited into their plan account unless they
withdraw from the Plans before the settlement payments are
distributed, in which case they will receive their settlement
payments by check.  Information can be obtained at
http://www.btcERISAsettlement.com/ or by calling the settlement
administrator at 1-877-814-0828.

The Plaintiff Class in Kanawi, et al. v. Bechtel Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-cv-05566 (N.D. Calif.), is represented by:

         SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON
         Attn: Bechtel ERISA Settlement
         100 S. Fourth St., Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Telephone: 314-621-6115
         Fax: 314-621-715
         E-mail: btcERISAsettlement@uselaws.com

and the Defendants are represented by:

         D. Ward Kallstrom, Esq.
         Jami Wintz McKeon, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Fax: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: dwkallstrom@morganlewis.com
                 jmckeon@morganlewis.com

              - and -

         Grace Carter, Esq.
         PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &WALKER, LLP
         55 Second Street, 24th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94014
         Telephone: (415) 856-7015
         Fax: (415) 856-7115
         E-mail: gracecarter@paulhastings.com

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer has scheduled a Fairness Hearing
at 10:00 a.m., prevailing Pacific Time, on Feb. 18, 2011, in San
Francisco, to review the settlement pact and any objections filed
and served by Jan. 19, 2011.


BENDIGO BANK: Supreme Court Rejects Class Action for Second Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sweeney, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reports the Supreme
Court has again struck out a multi-million dollar class action on
behalf of Bendigo Bank borrowers involved in the collapsed Great
Southern investment scheme.

Macpherson+Kelley lawyers have failed to appease the court with
their statement of claims rejected for the second time in two
months.

But they're not giving up with a third hearing scheduled for
February next year.

Tuesday's decision by the court follows an announcement in October
when the entire statement was struck out.

Bendigo Bank managing director Mike Hirst said he was concerned
for borrowers in the wake of the decision.

He said the rejection meant they would be forced to fund a third
attempt at an arguable case.

"Surely borrowers would have expected Macpherson+Kelley to put its
best argument forward first so as to reduce the time and money
spent on legal proceedings," he said.

"After being knocked back in October you would have thought
Macpherson+Kelley would have provided a better argument today but
now Macpherson+Kelley will be spending more of their clients'
money having a third bite of the cherry."

Mr. Hirst urged borrowers involved in the class action to re-
consider their involvement.

"The time has come for borrowers to consider whether they should
continue to expose themselves to compound and default interest by
not bringing their loans up to date," Mr. Hirst said.

Macpherson+Kelly will make a third attempt at filing a statement
of claims in the Supreme Court in February next year.

Investors involved in the class action collectively owe Bendigo
Bank more than $450 million.


BEXAR COUNTY: Settles Strip-Search Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Jeorge Zarazua, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports
thousands of people who were strip searched and booked into Bexar
County Jail in recent years are entitled to money from a $4.5
million class-action lawsuit settlement.

The county agreed to the settlement to protect itself from having
to pay more if the case had gone to trial and its strip-search
policies were ruled unconstitutional, said county spokeswoman
Laura Jesse.

As a result, people who went to jail between Nov. 15, 2005, and
April 9, 2009, and were strip searched can receive up to $1,000
each, depending on the charge, Ms. Jesse said.

She said as many as 30,000 people may qualify for some sort of
payment under the agreement, which will become the county's first
class-action settlement when U.S. District Judge Fred Biery gives
it final approval in January, according to Jesse.  Judge Biery
conditionally approved the settlement Oct. 13.

As part of the settlement, the county has begun its campaign to
notify people who are eligible to be paid.  It is also airing
television and radio commercials informing the public of the
settlement.  Those who are eligible and want to be excluded have
until the end of the month to notify officials.

"The reason the (commissioners') court voted to go ahead and
settle is because this sort of lawsuit has already been brought in
six federal courts, where those courts found blanket searches for
misdemeanants unconstitutional," Ms. Jesse said, adding that only
two federal courts have not.

The lawsuit against Bexar County was filed in 2005 by a
Washington, D.C.-based law firm that had successfully sued other
counties and jails across the country.  Other law firms also are
involved.

The lawsuit named three people as plaintiffs, including Julia Ann
Jackson, who was arrested in April 2006 on a warrant for driving
with an invalid license.  It alleged that people who were strip
searched and booked into Bexar County Jail during that time had
their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches
violated.

"In short, the policy of Bexar County and the Bexar County
Detention Center to force those charged with minor crimes to
undergo the indignities of a strip search upon detention is not
only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary," the
lawsuit claimed.

James Harrington, director of Texas Civil Rights Project and one
of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said he's satisfied with the
settlement.

"We're particularly glad that we were able to stop this kind of
practice," he said.  "It amazes me that it was able to go on."

Bexar County asserts its policy to visually strip search everyone
was done for the "protection of inmates, officers, and the general
public who visited the jail."  No contact was allowed and
detainees were searched by members of the same sex.

By agreeing to settle the lawsuit, Bexar County doesn't admit to
any wrongdoing.  But because of the potential of losing up to $55
million, Ms. Jesse said the county is settling and changed its
strip-search policies in April 2009.  Detainees charged with
felony crimes, or those suspected of having contraband, will
continue to be searched.

Ms. Jesse said people who are eligible for money from the
settlement have until March 16 to submit a claim.  Payments -- to
be made by the county's insurance -- will be made after that.

Those benefiting from the settlement have been divided into two
groups.  People who were charged with misdemeanors involving
drugs, weapons and shoplifting are in Subclass II and are eligible
for $100 each.  Those charged with other misdemeanor offenses can
seek a claim of up to $1,000.  The three named plaintiffs in the
lawsuit will receive $15,000 each.

Ms. Jesse said the settlement agreement contains a "reverter"
clause, meaning that any money that goes unclaimed goes back to
the county.

Mr. Harrington said although the number of jails that strip search
people charged with minor crimes is dwindling, some jurisdictions
still do so.

"My guess is most places have seen the writing on the wall in the
courts and are abandoning this practice," he said. "But it does go
on and when we do get complaints about it we will go ahead and
file litigation."

Making a claim

To qualify for a payment, a claim must be postmarked by March 16.
Claim forms are available online at
http://www.bexarcountystripsearch.com/

If you are unsure if you are eligible for money, you can call 888-
448-2130 for more information or visit the Web site.
Want to be excluded?

To exclude yourself from the settlement, send an exclusion request
to Bexar County Settlement Administration, c/o The Garden City
Group Inc., P.O. Box 9667, Dublin, OH 43017-4967, by Dec. 31.
Include name, address, telephone number and signature.


BLUE CROSS: Seeks Testimony From Expert in ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2010, Dr. Jin Zhou of ERISAclaim.com received a
subpoena from 23 Blue Cross Blue Shield entities to testify on the
matter of ERISA appeals practice in a national class action
lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield entities over overpayment
recoupment dispute, as many provider plaintiffs were taught on
ERISA appeal practice from Dr. Jin Zhou, in the wake of a federal
court ruling on May 17, 2010 against Blue Cross Blue Shield
entities permitting the providers' class-action to proceed under
ERISA. PCA et al v. BCBSA et al, Case #:1:09-cv-05619 (N.D. Ill).
In particular, sought by Blue Cross Blue Shield Entities, is the
"Magic disk, a compact disc entitled "ERISA Demystified - Getting
Paid by ERISA Compliance", as the textbook for ERISAclaim.com's
basic ERISA appeal process class and advanced ERISA Claim
Specialist Certification Class.  ERISA appeal regulation has been
adopted in its entirety by new federal reform law, Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, as the minimum
requirements for all group plans and individual policies,
effective September 23, 2010.

On September 10, 2009, Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association (PCA)
and Many Other chiropractic State associations as well as
individual providers filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court
against 23 Blue Cross Blue Shield entities in the dispute over
overpayment recoupment and withholding practice by Blue Cross
Shield entities in all 50 states. PCA et al v. BCBSA et al, Case
#:1:09-cv-05619 (N.D. Ill).  On May 17, 2010, the federal district
court in Chicago ruled against Blue Cross Blue Shield entities in
its motion to dismiss and permitted providers' class-action to
proceed under federal law ERISA, rejecting BCBS's state law and
provider contract arguments.  The class action lawsuit is now in
the discovery phase.  Relevant to ERISA class-action, the provider
plaintiffs were challenged by the defendants as to whether they
have complied with federal law ERISA and exhausted ERISA appeals
before the class-action lawsuit, and as many provider plaintiffs
were taught by Dr. Jin Zhou on how to file ERISA appeals in
compliance with the federal law and in accordance with ERISA
Appeal Textbook, "ERISA Demystified - Getting Paid by ERISA
Compliance".

As national health expenditure has been skyrocketing, Congress
made another health reform law, PPACA, early this year to mandate
ERISA appeals by everyone.  ERISAclaim.com has been the only
consulting company in the nation to provide providers with ERISA
and PPACA Appeals educational compliance practice.

"The Affordable Care Act will help support and protect consumers
and their healthcare providers to end some of the worst insurance
company abuses.  For too long, consumers and their providers have
been forced to fend for themselves in a health care system that
did not provide them with the support and assistance they needed
and deserved.  Today, ERISAclaim.com is offering advanced PPACA &
ERISA certification program that will teach healthcare providers
to appeal decisions made by the health plans and the availability
of resources that will be used to provide highest quality care and
help give consumers more control of their health care decisions,"
said Dr. Jin Zhou, President of ERISAclaim.com, a national PPACA &
ERISA compliance and appeals expert.

Further information on The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's
Bill of Rights, governing the new PPACA & ERISA Claim
Certification Program, can be found on the website of Department
of Health & Human Services:

"Fact Sheet: The Affordable Care Act: Protecting Consumers and
Putting Patients Back in Charge of Their Care - July 22, 2010

The Affordable Care Act will help support and protect consumers
and end some of the worst insurance company abuses.  For too long,
consumers have been forced to fend for themselves in a health care
system that did not provide them with the support and assistance
they needed and deserved.  Today, the Obama Administration is
announcing new regulations that will allow consumers to appeal
decisions made by their health plans and the availability of
resources that will be used to help give consumers more control of
their health care decisions."

"HHS, DOL & IRS News Release: The Affordable Care Act's New
Patient's Bill of Rights

New Regulations Give Patients Right To Appeal Health Plan
Decisions; New Grants Program Strengthens State and Territory
Consumer Assistance Programs"

ERISAclaim.com, located in Chicago suburb in Illinois, offers free
webinars, basic and advanced educational seminars and on-site
claims specialist certification programs for doctors, hospitals
and commercial companies, as well as litigation support.

For a copy of BCBS ERISA subpoena:

   http://www.erisaclaim.com/BCBSsubpoena.pdf

For more information on the "Magic Disc" sought by BCBS:

   http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm

For a copy of federal court ruling in PAC et al v. BCBSA et al:

   http://www.erisaclaim.com/BCBS_Overpayment_%20Class_Action_Opinion.pdf

For more information on how to become an ERISA-PPACA & ERISA
Claims Specialist under new and existing federal appeals
regulations.

For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of
ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.


CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in N.J. of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
game table supervisors claim Caesar's Entertainment and Harrah's
Operation Co. stiff them for overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Joseph v. Caesar's Entertainment Corp.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 991 in Case No.
33-av-00001 on Dec. 6, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/07/Casinos.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swindler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: 856-685-7420


CALUMET CITY: Sued for Violations of Freedom of Speech Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Allen, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees of the City of Calumet City, Illinois v. The City of
Calumet, et al., Case No. 2010-L-013775 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.
December 3, 2010), seeks redress for actions taken against her by
the defendants related to her exercise of her rights under the 1st
and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I,
Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution with respect to speech and
association.

The Calumet City is a municipal corporation incorporated under the
laws of the State of Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Municipal
Code.

Also being charged in the Complaint are individual defendants
George Vallis (Director of Personnel and Purchasing of Calumet
City), Nick Manousopoulos (Alderman of the 6th Ward of Calumet
City), Roger Munda (Alderman of the 5th Ward of Calumet City),
Brian Wilson (Alderman of the 4th Ward of Calumet City), and
Edward Gonzales (Alderman of the 1st Ward of the Calumet City),
who are sued in their individual capacities.

Ms. Allen relates that she was hired as an administrative
assistant for the Mayor of the City of Calumet City in April of
2006, a position she says is non-managerial and is not a political
position.  Ms. Allen explains that after Mayour Qualkinbush won
reelection, defendants Manousopoulos, Gonzalez, Munda, and Wilson,
developed a policy of retaliation against her and others
supporting the Mayor.  Defendant Manousopoulos, Ms. Allen states,
even physically assaulted her while she was at work.  She says she
filed a complaint with the Calumet City Police Department but was
told that an act by the elected official was not a crime.

Ms. Allen says that between October 2009 and June 2010, her salary
was reduced and her stipends were taken away and that on July 23,
2010, defendant Vallis terminated her without cause.  Ms. Allen
claims her termination was in retaliation for her open support of
Michelle Qualkinbush, who ran for election of Mayor of Calumet
City in 2005 and 2009.

Ms. Allen states that at one City Council meeting she complained
about the defendants' self-serving actions, illegal use of
taxpayer money, patronage hires and promotions and their general
incompetence.  She claims that similar complaints were also lodged
against the City administration for the "financially rapacious"
payments they made to themselves and their relatives and cronies."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luke A. Casson, Esq.
          ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD.
          661 West Lake Street, Suite 2N
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 935-2000


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Network Malfunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. Tuesday disclosed that following its previous
report dated December 2, 2010 regarding a major network
malfunction, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the District Court of Central Region, by two
plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming
compensation for mental anguish, in connection with allegations
that the Company unlawfully and in violation of its license and
its agreement with the plaintiffs, failed to provide service to
its subscribers during the network malfunction.

The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately
NIS1.18 billion.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

For additional details see our immediate report on form 6-K dated
December 2, 2010.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) --
http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
The Company provides its approximately 3.376 million subscribers
(as at September 30, 2010) with a broad range of services
including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for
tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional
services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc.  As of
2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom
Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone
communication services in Israel, in addition to data
communication services.  Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both
on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange (CEL).


CHARLES SCHWAB: Law Firm Reopens Probe on YieldPlus Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LLP has reopened its investigation
into the filing of individual arbitration claims against Charles
Schwab.  Recently, the US District Court has approved a proposed
amendment to the Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation
settlement.  The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action has been delivered to qualified class members.  This
includes those who may have held Schwab YieldPlus Fund shares on
September 1, 2006 and obtained more of them between May 31, 2006
and March 17, 2008.  Shares may have either been purchased or
obtained through dividend reinvestment in the Fund.  Class members
cannot have been residents of California on September 1, 2006.

Exclusion and Objection Deadlines: Your notice of exclusion or
objection must be postmarked no later than January 14, 2011 and
cannot be received after January 21, 2011.  For those that decide
to proceed with the class, you don't need to do anything to stay
eligible.

Filing an Individual Securities Claim Against Charles Schwab

For those investors that choose to be excluded from the Charles
Schwab YieldPlus class action and any related benefits, you can
file your own arbitration claim against Schwab.  Filing an
individual claim may potentially allow a claimant to recover more
than if he/she had stayed with the class action case.  Our
attorneys represent clients with securities frAU$ and other claims
against many brokerage firms, including Charles Schwab.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LLP -- http://www.sseklaw.com/--
has a team of attorneys, consultants and others with more than 100
years of combined experience in the securities industry and in
securities law.

CONTACT: Kirk G. Smith, Esq.
         Sam Edwards, Esq.
         SHEPHERD SMITH EDWARDS & KANTAS
         Telephone: 800-259-9010
         E-mail: ksmith@sseklaw.com
                 sedwards@sseklaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Scherek" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Roxane Scherek, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-10-504986 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on October 29, 2010.  The
plaintiff accuses Facebook, who operates a social networking Web
site, of transferring, without consent, her personally identifying
information, including but not limited to her unique Facebook
identification number, with third parties, in violation of Federal
and State law as well as defendants' own private policies.

On the basis that the appropriate district court has original
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), Facebook, Inc., on
December 6, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-05528 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545

Facebook, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brown, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two consolidated class actions filed against General Motors
Corporation in Maine and California remain pending, according to
General Motors Company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Approximately eighty purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United States since
January 1, 2001, have been filed in various state and federal
courts against General Motors Corporation, General Motors of
Canada Limited, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited,
and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates, the
National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association.  The federal court actions have
been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the
caption In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust
Litigation Cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine, and the more than 30 California cases have been
consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco
County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota Corporation, et al.
and Bell v. General Motors Corporation.  Old GM's liability in
these matters was not assumed by General Motors Company as part of
the 363 Sale.  GMCL was not part of Old GM's bankruptcy proceeding
and potentially remains liable in all matters.  In the California
state court cases, oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and defendants' motion in limine were heard on
April 21, 2009.  The court ruled that it would certify a class.
Defendants written appeal to the appropriate California court was
denied. Defendants are preparing other substantive motions for
summary judgment.  In the Minnesota state court cases, the court
granted defendants' motions to lift the stay of proceedings and
granted summary judgment on September 16, 2010.  Plaintiffs have
not yet filed an appeal.

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.  The complaints alleged that new
vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the
United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to
U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive
prices by U.S. consumers.  The complaints, as amended, sought
injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages
under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages.
The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices act.  On March 5, 2004, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision holding
that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a
claim for damages under federal antitrust law but allowed a
separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to
continue.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on
March 10, 2006 certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees
under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on
March 21, 2007 stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide
class actions for damages under various state law theories under
Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from January 1, 2001 to
April 30, 2003.  On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit heard oral arguments on Old GM's consolidated
appeal of both class certification orders.

On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
reversed the certification of the injunctive class and ordered
dismissal of the injunctive claim.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages
class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal
jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for
reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete
record.  On remand, plaintiffs again moved to certify a damages
class, and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to
strike plaintiffs' economic expert.  On July 2, 2009, the court
granted one of defendants' summary judgment motions.  Plaintiffs
did not appeal.  As a result, the only issues remaining in the
federal actions relate to disposition of the funds paid by Toyota
in a settlement years ago.

General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department
of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability
company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently
converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company,
which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets
and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and
changed its name to General Motors Company.


GENERAL MOTORS: American Export Antitrust Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against General Motors Corporation in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice remains pending, according to General
Motors Company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On September 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited and Old
GM on behalf of a purported class of actual and intended
purchasers of vehicles in Canada claiming that a similar alleged
conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being
sold to Canadians.  The Plaintiffs have delivered their
certification materials.  An order staying claims against MLC was
granted in November 2009.  A certification hearing has not yet
been scheduled.  No determination has been made that the case may
be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to
determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the
amount of any damages.

General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department
of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability
company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently
converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company,
which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets
and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and
changed its name to General Motors Company.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Dealer Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada Limited continues to defend itself from a
lawsuit filed by Canadian dealers in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, according to General Motors Company's November 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 21, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited for
damages on behalf of a purported class of 215 Canadian General
Motors dealers which entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL
in May 2009.  GMCL offered the Plaintiff dealers the wind-down
agreements to assist the Plaintiffs' exit from the GMCL Canadian
dealer network upon the expiration of their GM Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements (DSSAs) on October 31, 2010, and to assist the
Plaintiffs in winding down their dealer operations in an orderly
fashion.  The Plaintiff dealers allege that the DSSAs have been
wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with
franchise disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of
fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the dealers' statutory
right to associate in an attempt to coerce the class member
dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements.  The Plaintiff
dealers claim that the wind-down agreements are void.

GMCL is vigorously defending the claims.  A certification hearing
has not yet been scheduled.  No determination has been made that
the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not
possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably
ascertain the amount of any damages.

General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department
of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability
company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently
converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company,
which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets
and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and
changed its name to General Motors Company.


GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Analog Equipment Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to add General Motors LLC as defendant in a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed against OnStar Corporation is still
pending, according to General Motors Company's November 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

General Motors Company's wholly-owned subsidiary OnStar
Corporation is a party to more than 20 putative class actions
filed in various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and California.  All of these cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district proceeding
under the caption In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of
services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware.  OnStar was
unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular
carriers which provide communication service to OnStar terminated
analog service beginning in February 2008.  In the various cases,
the plaintiffs are seeking certification of nationwide or
statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently equipped with
analog equipment, alleging various breaches of contract,
misrepresentation and unfair trade practices.  No determination
has been made as to whether class certification motions are
appropriate, and it is not possible at this time to determine
whether class certification or liability is probable as to OnStar
or to reasonably ascertain the amount of any liability.

On August 2, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add
General Motors LLC as an additional defendant.  General Motors
Company will oppose that motion, which it believes is barred by
the Sale Approval Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2009.

General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department
of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability
company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently
converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company,
which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets
and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and
changed its name to General Motors Company.


GENERAL MOTORS: Dropped From Unintended Acceleration Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company was dropped from a consolidated class
action complaint filed against Toyota in California, according to
the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

General Motors Company had been named as a co-defendant in two of
the many class action lawsuits brought against Toyota arising from
Toyota's recall of certain vehicles related to reports of
unintended acceleration.  The two cases are Nimishabahen Patel v.
Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al. (filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut on Feb. 9,
2010) and Darshak Shah v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al.
(filed in the United States District court for the District of
Massachusetts on or about February 16, 2010).

The 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibe, which was manufactured
by a joint venture between Toyota and Old GM, included components
that were common with those addressed by the Toyota recall and
were accordingly the subject of a parallel recall by General
Motors Company.  Each case makes allegations regarding Toyota's
conduct related to the condition addressed by the recall and
asserts breaches of implied and express warranty, unjust
enrichment and violation of consumer protection statutes and seeks
actual damages, multiple damages, attorneys fees, costs and
injunctive relief on behalf of classes of vehicle owners which
include owners of 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibes.

The cases were consolidated in the multi-district proceeding
pending in the Central District of California created to
administer all cases in the Federal court system addressing Toyota
unintended acceleration issues.  Although a comprehensive
assessment of the cases is not possible at this time, General
Motors Company believes that, with respect to the overwhelming
majority of Pontiac vehicles addressed by the two cases, the
claims asserted are barred by the Sale Approval Order entered by
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York on July 5, 2009.

Moreover, on August 2, 2010, a consolidated complaint was filed in
the multi-district proceeding and General Motors Company was
omitted from the list of named defendants.  Accordingly, it is
possible that the claims asserted will not be further pursued
against General Motors Company.

General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department
of the Treasury in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability
company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently
converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company,
which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets
and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and
changed its name to General Motors Company.


GENERAL WAX: Recalls 12,000 Silver Metallic Pillar Candles
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
General Wax & Candle Company, of North Hollywood, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 Silver Metallic
Pillar Candles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves metallic pillar candles sold in two sizes:
2.8 by 4 inches and 2.8 by 6 inches.  "Metallic Pillar Candle" and
UPC code 86718 56082 or 86718 56092 is printed on the bottom of
the candles' plastic wrapping.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11061.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Bed Bath and Beyond stores nationwide from October 2010
through November 2010 for between $8 and $10.

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


GENOPTIX INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Genoptix
propped up its stock price with false and misleading statements,
and the share price dropped from $38.79 to $17.19 in 6 weeks when
the truth came out, in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund
- Lake County and Vicinity v. Genoptix Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-02502 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/07/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com


GT SOLAR: Discovery in "Braun" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in connection with an amended consolidated
complaint filed against GT Solar International Inc. in New
Hampshire, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2010.

Beginning on August 1, 2008, seven putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire, against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, certain underwriters of its July 24,
2008 initial public offering and others, including certain
investors in the Company.  On October 3, 2008, the Court entered
an order consolidating the federal class actions into a single
action captioned Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et
al.  The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel in the consolidated matter on October 29, 2008.  The lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 22,
2008.  The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on February 5, 2009.  On September 22, 2009, the Court
denied the defendants' motion.

Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted
a proposed joint case management order to the Court on November 6,
2009.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of
the Securities Act. The amended consolidated complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants made false and materially
misleading statements and failed to disclose material information
in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and
Prospectus for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, and other public statements, regarding the Company's
business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the Company's
customers, JYT Corporation, one of the Company's competitors, and
certain of the Company's products, including the Company's DSS
furnaces.  Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint
seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief
as the Court should deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
on February 5, 2009.  On September 22, 2009, the Court denied the
defendant's motion.  Following the Court's denial of the motion,
the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order,
which the Court approved on November 6, 2009.  The case management
order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011.


GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Suit Still Pending in New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------
GT Solar International Inc. still faces a putative securities
class action under the caption Hamel v. GT Solar International,
Inc., et al., in New Hampshire state court, according to the
company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2,
2010.

On September 18, 2008 a putative securities class action was filed
in New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for
Hillsborough County, Southern District, under the caption Hamel v.
GT Solar International, Inc., et al., against the Company, certain
of the Company's officers and directors and certain underwriters
of its July 24, 2008 initial public offering.  The state class
action plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The state class action
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in certain SEC filings, including the
registration statement for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial
public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status
of the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar.  Among
other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
State Court should deem just and proper.

The Company removed the state class action to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on October 22,
2008.  The state class action was consolidated with the federal
class action on November 25, 2008.  On February 2, 2009, the
federal Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state
class action to New Hampshire State Court.  On May 4, 2009, the
parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal
case.  At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state
court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by
the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be
taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal
class action.  With the denial of the motion to dismiss the
federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case
management order to the State Court on November 6, 2009.  On
January 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the
parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's
Business and Commercial Dispute Docket.

No further updates were reported in the company's latest SEC
filing.


ISILON SYSTEMS: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to EMC Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saravanan Coimbatore, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Isilon Systems, Inc., et al., Case no. 6050-
(Del. Ch. Ct. December 6, 2010), seeks to enjoin the acquisition
of the publicly owned shares of Isilon common stock by EMC
Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiary Electron Merger
Corporation.  Mr. Coimbatore says each of the defendants,
including certain of the Company's directors and officers,
violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the
other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, by agreeing
to facilitate the acquisition of the Company by EMC for grossly
inadequate consideration, through a flawed process, and based upon
grossly inadequate disclosures.

On November 15, 2010, EMC and Isilon jointly announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby EMC,
through its wholly owned subsidiary, would acquire all outstanding
shares of Isilon for $33.85 in cash per share in a transaction
value at approximately $2.25 billion.

Mr. Coimbatore says the consideration offered to Isilon's
shareholders in exchange for their equity interest in the Company
is wholly inadequate, given the Company's recent growth in
revenue, earnings and free cash flow, and expectations of
substantial growth.  Mr. Coimbatore adds that while Company
shareholders are offered grossly inadequate consideration, each of
the individual defendants and other key executives will reap
windfall benefits from the Proposed Transaction in the form of
change of control payments for both vested and unvested stock
options, restricted stock units, and severance payments.
According to the lawsuit, defendant Sujal M. Patel, the founder of
Isilon, a member of the Board, and President and CEO since October
2007, alone stands to collect over $17.8 million in said change of
control payments, while directors William D. Ruckelshaus, Peter H.
van Oppen, Elliott H. Jurgensen, Jr., and Donald J. Listwin will
collectively receive more than $3.1 million for their Isilon
options, the vesting of which is accelerated under the terms of
the Merger Agreement.

Moreover, according to the Complaint, the Company's three largest
shareholders, Atlas Venture, Sequoia Capital and Madronna Venture
Group, who together with their affiliates collectively hold
30,292,415 shares of Isilon stock, or 45.4% of the Company's
outstanding shares, through their representatives on Isilon's
Board "secured their $1.02 billion payday" by entering into Tender
and Voting Agreements by which they agree to tender, and if
necessary vote, their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

To further ensure the success of the Proposed Transaction, the
Complaint says the Board locked up the deal by agreeing to
impermissible "deal-protection" devices, effectively rendering the
Proposed Transaction a fait d'accompli, including: (i) a "Top-Up
Option," which allows EMC to acquire up to 90% plus 100 shares and
pursue a merger under 8 Del C. Section 253, without a vote; (ii) a
"no-shop" provision that prevents the Company from negotiating
with or providing confidential Company information to competing
bidders except under extremely limited circumstances; (iii) a
"matching rights" provision that allows EMC three (3) business
days to match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that
one emerges; and (iv) a $100 million termination fee to be paid to
EMC if the Board agrees to a competing proposal.

Plaintiff Saravanan Coimbatore is a stockholder of defendant
Isilon.

Defendant Isilon, a Delaware corporation. is a network-attached
storage ("NAS") systems company, with headquarters located at 3101
Western Avenue, Seattle, in Washington.

EMC is a Massachusetts corporation which, according to Mr.
Coimbatore, claims to be the world leader in products, services
and solutions for information management and storage that help
organizations extract the maximum value from their information, at
the lowest total cost, across every point in the information
lifecycle.  EMC is headquartered in Hopkinton, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Strum, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles
Film School and Los Angeles Recording School lure students with
false claims about work placement and graduation rates, and
maintain accreditation through deception, students say in a class
action in Superior Court.  Students say they paid $18,000 to
$23,000 apiece in tuition.

Students say the Film School owns and operates the so-called
"Recording and Engineering school," and charges $18,000 to $23,000
for a 900-hour program -- but the class claims students do not
really get 900 hours of instruction.

The two named plaintiffs say they enrolled in the school's "900-
Hour Recording Engineer Program."  The school told them that the
"900 Program is accredited by the Accrediting Council of
Continuing Education & Training," that the Los Angeles Recording
School "maintained a placement percentage sufficient to achieve
ACCET accreditation," and that its career development department
oversees "a curriculum designed to prepare students for the
pursuit of internships and entry level employment, including
instruction about resume creation, interview techniques, and the
professionalism required within the industry," according to the
complaint.

Graduates receive a summary of the hours of instruction they
"attempted" or that were "provided," but "not a single document .
. . demonstrates that any student was actually 'offered' 900 hours
of instruction," the complaint states.  The plaintiffs say they
received 800 to 860 hours of instruction.

They say the school lures students by claiming that it is
accredited by ACCET, but it employs deceptive practices to get
that accreditation.  They claim the school required all students
to get business cards showing they were self-employed, and
provided the cards to ACCET, leading the agency to believe that
the students "were self-employed when in fact they were not."

The class claims the school ran "business card promotions" where
it offered gift cards to Target and Best Buy if students signed
self-employment forms.  And it listed jobs at Apple and Guitar
Center stores as "creative positions" when students were only
sales clerks, according to the complaint.

When ACCET audited the recording school, "the student files which
would not 'qualify' were simply pulled by the Career Development
Dept., never shown to ACCET, thus reducing the overall number of
students and increasing the placement percentage," the complaint
states.

They claim that school canceled classes in which students did not
test well, and regularly provided students with answers to test
questions before exams.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and wants the
defendants enjoined from "unfair, unlawful and frAU$ulent business
acts and practices."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Ozzello, Esq.
          Mikael Stahle, Esq.
          ARIAS, OZZELLO, AND GIGNAC LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90045
          Telephone: 310-670-1600


MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Accessibility Reviewed After Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Moskowitz, writing for The Boston Globe, reports the judge
monitoring the settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit over
MBTA accessibility said the T has made considerable progress in
the last four years, but riders with disabilities still face daily
obstacles to using the public transit system.

"In some areas, a lot has been accomplished.  In other areas, very
little," said Patrick J. King, the retired state Superior Court
judge appointed by a federal court to monitor the Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority's compliance.  "But the momentum has
been in the right direction, and gradually we're seeing some
changes."

The 2002 lawsuit accused the T of moving too slowly to comply with
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, citing inaccessible
stations, subway cars, and buses; poor signage and unreliable
announcements; and operators untrained or unwilling to assist
riders with disabilities.  In the 2006 settlement, the T pledged
to reform its practices and to make its facilities more
accessible.

In one of the twice-yearly meetings required by the settlement,
Judge King said Monday the T has made "tremendous progress" by
spending hundreds of millions on new elevators and equipment,
changing the atmosphere at the agency, and making a good-faith
commitment to the agreement.

Judge King said the speed of progress has been checked by the
recession and the magnitude of the work needed, but not every
delay is a result of money or construction schedules.  For
example, he said, the T has purchased more than 360 evacuation
chairs, but riders with disabilities say the agency has not
developed a comprehensive plan for using them during an emergency.

The three-hour meeting, which drew more than 50 accessibility
advocates and riders with disabilities, provided a forum for the
public to comment on the settlement's progress.

Karen Schneiderman of Jamaica Plain said her daily commute has
been aided by bridge plates covering the gaps between platforms
and subway cars -- sometimes half a foot or more -- that the T is
using until it can upgrade the service with new trains and
platforms.  But Ms. Schneiderman, who uses a wheelchair, said some
T workers on weekends are unfamiliar with the bridge plates, and
do not know how to unlock them from station walls.

"They're not doing this to be mean, they're not doing this to be
rude," said Ms. Schneiderman, who works as a senior advocacy
specialist for the Boston Center for Independent Living.  "For the
most part, they're very nice.  But they don't know how to do it."

Miriam Cooper, a college student from Cambridge, said she is
disappointed that the screens being installed at MBTA stations to
show real-time locations of subway cars do not also have an audio
component for the blind.

"Something like this, which is a new piece of equipment, to have
it come out and be new and be inaccessible to me is extremely
frustrating," said Ms. Cooper, who attended the meeting with her
guide dog, Boe.

Several senior managers from the T participated in the meeting,
and their attendance was cited by the authority's general manager,
Richard A. Davey, as evidence of the agency's intent.

"My point is, we take this seriously," said Mr. Davey, in the T's
top job since March.  "You've got my commitment that to get our
attention will never take a lawsuit again.  You have our
attention, you have our commitment, that we want to make public
transportation accessible to all."

The meeting came as Davey and the T try to manage the soaring cost
of the Ride, a federally mandated service that provides door-to-
door trips for those unable to use the public transit system
because of a physical or mental disability.  Over the past decade,
MBTA spending on the program quadrupled to $85 million a year, and
ridership continues to rise.  Riders pay the equivalent of subway
fare, and the T subsidizes the remaining 95 percent of the cost.

Mr. Davey told the authority's board of directors last week at its
monthly meeting that he wants to market the improvements the T has
made to the subway and bus system to attract some Ride users who
were discouraged by the old MBTA.

"The experience they'll have today is completely different," Gary
Talbot, the assistant general manager who oversees systemwide
accessibility, said after Monday's meeting.

MBTA customer Don Summerfield agreed.  "There's a lot to be done,"
said the Cambridge resident, who uses a cane, "but in these past
few years there's so much that's happened."


MDL 1775: Four Air Cargo Carriers Agree to Pay $118 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are partial Proposed Settlements in In re Air Cargo Shipping
Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1775; Master File No.
06-MD-1775 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.), totaling approximately $118
million in class action lawsuits about Airfreight Shipping
Services that are proceeding in the United States and Canada.
Airfreight Shipping Services are defined in this litigation as
paid private air transport of freight or other cargo by an airline
acting as a provider of such services for shipments to, from, or
within the United States from January 1, 2000, to September 11,
2006.  The Proposed Settlements are partial because there are a
number of other Defendants remaining in the cases and the
litigation is continuing as to those other Defendants.  All of the
settling carriers also have agreed to cooperate in the case
against the remaining Defendants.  The settling carriers have
asserted a number of defenses to Plaintiffs' claims but have
settled to avoid the cost and risk of a trial.

Air France-KLM Settlement, Societe Air France, Koninklijke
Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., and Martinair Holland N.V., have
paid $87 million.  Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. has paid
US$12 million in the U.S. Settlement and CDN$738,000 in the
Canadian Settlement.  American Airlines, Inc. and AMR Corporation
have paid $5 million.  Scandinavian Airlines System and SAS Cargo
Group A/S have paid $13.93 million.

The U.S. District Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 11:30 a.m.
on March 3, 2011.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold
a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 13, 2011.  The Supreme
Court of British Columbia will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:00
a.m. on February 15, 2011.  The Quebec Superior Court will hold a
Fairness Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on March 3, 2011.  At these hearings
the Courts will consider whether the Proposed Settlements are
fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether to approve the request
for litigation expenses.  If there are objections, the Court will
consider them.  After the hearings, the Courts will decide whether
to approve the Proposed Settlements.

Additional information is available at
http://www.AirCargoSettlement2.com/from The Garden City Group
Inc., in its role as the Settlement Administrator.

The lawyers representing the Plaintiff Class are:

         Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
         Hausfeld LLP
         1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
         Washington, DC 20006

              - and -

         Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022

              - and -

         Hollis Salzman, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005

              - and -

         Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
         Levin, Fishbein, Sedran  & Berman
         510 Walnut Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19106

Societe Air France is represented by:

         James R. Warnot, Jr., Esq.
         Thomas A. McGrath, Esq.
         Linklaters LLP
         1345 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY  10105

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines is represented by:

         John M. Nannes, Esq.
         Gary A. MacDonald, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
         1440 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC  20005-2111

Martinair Holland N.V. is represented by:

         Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
         D. Jarrett Arp, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd., is represented by:

         William Karas, Esq.
         Kenneth P. Ewing, Esq.
         Steptoe & Johnson LLP
         1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20036

AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc., are represented by:

         Steven A. Reiss, Esq.
         Richard A. Rothman, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153-0119

Scandinavian Airlines System and SAS Cargo Group A/S are
represented by:

         Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
         George D. Ruttinger, Esq.
         Crowell & Moring LLP
         1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20004


MEYER CORPORATION: Recalls 59,000 Quart Teakettle
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meyer Corporation, U.S., of Vallejo, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 59,000 Rachael Ray(TM) Brand Two Quart Teakettle.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Water heated in the teakettles can spill and spray while being
poured, posing a burn hazard.

The firm received eight complaints regarding the spilling of hot
water from the teakettle's spout.  Four of the complaints included
reports of burn injuries.

The recalled product is a Rachael Ray (TM) brand two quart
teakettle.  The teakettle has a stainless steel lid with a black
handle and comes in four body colors: orange, blue, green and
yellow.  The teakettle's spout is opened by pushing forward a
small black sliding piece on the teakettle's handle.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11059.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
through the teakettles were sold at a variety of department,
housewares and gourmet kitchen stores and at discount and online
retailers.  The teakettles were sold from December 2008 through
October 2010 for between $18 and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using this product.  Known
consumers were mailed instructions for obtaining a replacement.
Consumers should contact the firm to arrange for a replacement
teakettle.  For additional information or to obtain a replacement
teakettle, please contact Meyer U.S. at (877) 782-8242 between
7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., PST, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.meyer.com/rrteakettlerecall/


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Class Action Suit in California Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against NextWave
Wireless Inc. in California is still pending, according to the
company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2,
2010.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against NextWave Wireless and certain of
its officers.  The suit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
NextWave Wireless' common stock during the period from March 30,
2007 to August 7, 2008.

A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al.
v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of NextWave
Wireless' common stock during an extended class period, from
November 27, 2006 through August 7, 2008.

On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the
two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On May 15, 2009, the lead
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on June 29, 2009,
NextWave Wireless filed a Motion to Dismiss that Amended
Complaint.  On March 5, 2010, the Court granted NextWave Wireless'
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff
to file an Amended Complaint.

On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the Motion now
has been fully briefed and is under submission to the court.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Loan Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hrodey, writing for Milwaukee News Buzz, reports a Kansas
City couple has filed a class action lawsuit against Milwaukee
insurance giant Northwestern Mutual Life.  They allege the company
has kept interest rates on some loans, rates set during the raging
inflation rates of the 1970s, in place for decades and refuses to
lower them.  An NML spokesperson says the company will "vigorously
defend against these allegations," and it will need to: Law firms
in Los Angeles, Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee and Florida have
signed on to help the plaintiffs.

A complaint filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court the day before
Thanksgiving says the number of life insurance policyholders
affected by the interest rates "is at least several thousand and
quite likely substantially more."

Gad and Jean Smith of Kansas City purchased six $10,000 life
insurance policies from Northwestern between 1963 and 1974,
according to the complaint.  As "whole" life insurance policies,
they grew in value as the Smiths paid premiums on them.

The Smiths, and other owners of such policies, could borrow money
from their policies at an interest rate of five or six percent,
depending on when the policies were issued.  Then came stagflation
in the late 1970s.  In reaction to a stagnant economy and high
inflation, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates
dramatically.

The lawsuit claims that with double-digit interest rates,
Northwestern feared too many policyholders would pull money out of
their policies, pay the five or six percent interest on the loan
and still make a profit by investing the money on their own.  The
company worried this would "negatively affect the company's
investment returns," the complaint says.

In 1977, Northwestern offered increased dividends to policyholders
who would be willing to raise their interest rates to a maximum of
8 percent.  The statement from the company offering the change
stated: "The rate will be adjusted up or down in line with
prevailing long term economic condition but will never be higher
than 8 percent."

It added, "We believe this new provision will be to your advantage
unless you expect to borrow extensively on your policy over long
periods of time."

In a later statement from the company, it sounded somewhat less
likely that Northwestern would later lower the interest rate.  "If
you accept this offer," it said, the interest rate will be 8
percent.  Then, in parenthesis, the company added that it "may
charge less as long term economic conditions warrant."

The Smiths signed on, agreeing to the increased dividends and
potentially higher interest rates for all six of their policies.
Their rates were set at 8 percent, but 33 years later, the
complaint alleges, the company has yet to lower them, even after
federal interest rates sank below 1 percent in the economic
downturn.

The complaint claims that newer life insurance policies from
Northwestern offer lower premiums based on benchmarks such as the
Moody's Bond Index.

NML spokesperson Jean Towell said the company will "strongly
dispute their allegations that the Company has failed to satisfy
its contractual obligations or that it otherwise violated any
legal duty."

"Comparing loan rates on life insurance policies to loan rates
available on consumer loans is like comparing apples to oranges.
The plaintiffs' contract language does not include any linkage
between policy loan rates and other loan rates.  The rate that has
been charged has been and still is appropriate," she stated.

Finally, Ms. Towell noted, "By accepting the policy loan amendment
with a guaranteed maximum policy loan rate, the plaintiffs
benefited by being paid higher policy dividends than they
otherwise would have been entitled to."

Gad Smith declined on Monday to commit on the lawsuit.  He said
Gerry Goldsholle, a personal injury and insurance attorney based
in the Los Angeles area, is the lead attorney for the case.  A
large legal team has already assembled to represent the Smiths and
additional clients if the court grants the lawsuit class action
status.

Mr. Goldsholle is a former Chief Brokerage Executive at MetLife.
He and another attorney from his firm have notified Milwaukee
County Circuit Court that they intend to apply for approval to
practice law in Wisconsin for this case.

So have four other attorneys from a Chicago-area law firm, Foote,
Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, that specializes in class action
lawsuits.  Also signing onto the case are attorneys from a
Pensacola, Fla., law firm (Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz)
and a St. Louis firm (The DeVoto Law Firm).

The man-on-the-ground in Milwaukee is apparently Paul Scoptur of
Aiken & Scoptur, a medical malpractice and personal injury
attorney based in this city.  Mr. Scoptur declined to comment on
the case.  He says Northwestern was given a copy of the complaint
last week, but the company hasn't been formally served yet.  He
says he's scheduling a meeting with the company.

Another class action lawsuit against Northwestern is pending in
Milwaukee County court.  The lawsuit -- fought on both sides by
large teams of lawyers -- alleges that the company wrongfully
denied dividend payments to some owners of the company's
annuities.

The company changed the portfolio on which the dividends were
based without seeking customer approval, lowering returns.
Northwestern has contended that it obtained approval from state
regulators before making the change.

A trial in the case unfolded across several days in November.  A
decision from Reserve Judge Dennis Flynn of Racine County isn't
expected until early next year.


REED ELSEVIER: Judge Allows Lexis-Nexis Class Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that a
judge has allowed a class action to go forward accusing British-
based Reed Elsevier Inc. of violating the Georgia Constitution by
entering into a pact with Fulton County that forces litigants to
file their papers through Reed's division Lexis-Nexis, and pay
dearly for it.  "The plaintiffs have stated facts that could
support a claim against the Fulton courts and third parties acting
together with the Fulton Courts, that the e-filing system as
instituted is an unreasonable burden to litigants seeking redress
in the courts of Fulton County," said Dekalb County Superior Court
Judge Robert Castellani in his ruling.

The judge also shot down arguments by lawyers for Reed Elsevier
suggesting that the Georgia Constitution does not guarantee a
right of access to Georgia's courts.

"Based on Georgia Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, citizens of the State of Georgia do
indeed have a right of access to the courts to resolve their
disputes and neither the Legislature nor any court of this state
can erect a total bar to that access or a bar that unreasonably
restricts that right of access," the judge wrote.

Steven J. Newton and other attorneys filed the Fulton County
Superior Court case in January, claiming that Lexis-Nexis
Courtlink, owned by publishing giant Reed Elsevier, and Fulton
County, Ga., violates the constitutional right of access to state
courts by forcing litigants to file electronically through Lexis
Nexis.

Judge Castellani assumed control of the case after all Fulton
County State and Superior Court judges were recused.

Judge Castellani denied Lexis-Nexis' motion to dismiss the case,
except for three plaintiffs: W. Phillip McCurdy III, Michael
Cawthorn and Nelson W. Picklesimer.

"This does not have an effect on the two remaining plaintiffs,"
Mr. Newton said in an interview.  "They can represent the other
people.  There is one commonality: They had to pay fees."

Mr. Newton also represents Kenneth Clowdus as administrator for
the estate of Kenneth Larry Clowdus and The Best Jewelry
Manufacturing Co.

Judge Castellani also denied the plaintiffs' motion to add
defendants, saying his court sees no reason why additional parties
"are required or necessary to fully resolve the matter before it."

Judge Castellani noted that while the case is relatively simple in
regard to the relief sought, the case "has had a long and
convoluted procedural history."  He advised counsel to adhere to
the Civil Practices Act.

"Given the history of this case and the propensity of counsel to
use a shotgun when a carefully aimed rifle would be preferable,
the court directs counsel to conduct themselves in future filings
and arguments in a manner that comports with the goals of the
Civil Practices Act," he wrote.

Judge Castellani rebutted an argument by Lexis-Nexis attorney
William K. Whitner, who said the lawsuit should be dismissed
according to state law, which asserts that "a plaintiff's
secondary voluntary dismissal of a complaint alleging the same
basic claims against a defendant constitutes a final adjudication
on the merits."

"The court finds that dismissal for having filed and voluntarily
dismissed two previous actions applies only to the first original
plaintiffs, to wit, McCurdy, Cawthorn, and Picklesimer, but not to
plaintiffs Clowdus and The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Company, as
neither of these parties was a party to the first federal action
and therefore has only voluntarily dismissed this action once,"
the judge wrote.

"The remaining plaintiffs will still have to demonstrate that this
action is properly brought as a class action, that they are
adequate representatives of the class, or that additional
plaintiffs will need to be added to achieve adequate
representation."

Judge Castellani also struck down Mr. Whitner's argument that the
"plaintiffs' claim alleging a joint venture or partnership between
it and Fulton County must fail, as it is only an independent
contractor bound by a contract to provide the services of e-
filing."

Judge Castellani said that he agrees with the plaintiffs'
assertion that "the contractor has not demonstrated there is no
set of facts which would support plaintiffs' claim of joint
venture or partnership."

Mr. Whitner also claimed the plaintiffs' misconstrued a clause in
the Georgia Constitution which states that "no person shall be
deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or
by an attorney, that person's own cause in any of the courts of
this state."

The plaintiffs have argued that the clause guarantees rights of
access to the court, which that Lexis-Nexis Courtlink and Fulton
County have denied by charging excessive and unauthorized fees.
Mr. Whitner disagreed, saying the clause does not guarantee rights
of access to the courts, but to self-representation.  He said
there is "no express constitutional 'rights of access to the
courts' under the Georgia Constitution."

Judge Castellani sided with the plaintiffs on that argument.

"The plaintiffs have stated facts that could support a claim
against the Fulton courts and third parties acting together with
the Fulton Courts, that the e-filing system as instituted is an
unreasonable burden to litigants seeking redress in the courts of
Fulton County," Judge Castellani wrote.

He also addressed issues concerning frAU$, sovereign immunity and
indispensable parties, before summarizing his reasons for denying
Mr. Whitner's motion to dismiss.

He said he will set a hearing date after the first of the year on
the discovery needed for a ruling class certification and
discovery.

The lawsuit is the fourth claim against Fulton County and Lexis-
Nexis Courtlink.

The Fulton County Superior Court case was originally filed in
May 2009, then voluntarily dismissed and refiled on Jan. 6.
Mr. Newton filed a similar lawsuit against Lexis-Nexis Courtlink
and Fulton County in Federal Court.  He filed the original federal
claim in December 2007 but withdrew it in March 2008, then refiled
it in June 2008.

Cathlene "Tina" Robinson and Mark N. Harper, Fulton County
Superior and State Court clerks, respectively, were defendants in
the federal case.  That case was dismissed in March 2009.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Accused of Discriminating Against Blacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Service Corporation International, the biggest funeral
services company in the country, discriminates against blacks.
The named plaintiff says SCI has just one black location manager
in its 1,800 outlets.

A copy of the Complaint in Holmes v. Service Corporation
International, Case No. 10-cv-04841 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/07/EmployBias.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martin Shellist, Esq.
          Sidd Rao, Esq.
          SHELLIST, LAZARZ & SLOBIN, LLP
          3D/International Tower
          1900 West Loop South, Suite 1910
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277

               - and -

          N. Jill Yaziji, Esq.
          YAZIJI LAW FIRM
          1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 436-6664


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Negotiates Tentative Deal to Resolve DivX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions has reached a tentative agreement to resolve
allegations asserted against it in a stockholder class litigation
relating to the Company's acquisition of DivX, Inc., according to
the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In connection with the acquisition of DivX, Inc., the Company is a
defendant in several putative shareholder class action lawsuits
filed in Delaware Chancery Court and California Superior Court:

   * The lawsuits in California Superior Court are captioned
     Gahlen v. DivX, Inc., Case No. 37-2010-00094693-CU-SL-CTL,
     and Pared v. DivX, Inc., Case No. 37-2010-00096242-CU-SL-CTL,
     and were consolidated as In re DivX, Inc. Shareholder
     Litigation, Case No. 37-2010-00094693-CU-SL-CTL.

   * The lawsuits in Delaware Chancery Court are captioned
     Chropufka v. DivX, Inc., C.A. No. 5643-CC, and Willis v.
     DivX, Inc., C.A. No. 5647-CC, and were consolidated as In re
     DivX, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
     5463-CC.

These lawsuits were originally filed against DivX, members of the
DivX board of directors, Sonic, Siracusa Merger Corporation, and
Siracusa Merger LLC, Sonic's merger subsidiaries.  The lawsuits,
brought by individual DivX stockholders, challenged the proposed
merger and sought, among other things, to enjoin defendants from
completing the merger pursuant to the terms of the merger
agreement.

On August 22, 2010, the parties reached a tentative agreement to
settle all of these lawsuits and signed a memorandum of
understanding that is subject to confirmatory discovery, a more
detailed settlement agreement and court approval.

As of November 9, 2010, the parties are negotiating the fees
payable to the plaintiff's counsel and other matters relating to
the settlement.  If the parties cannot agree on the fees,
plaintiffs will file a fee application with the court.


ST. JOE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Pomerantz HAU$ek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against The St. Joe Company and certain of its officers.
The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-cv-0504) is on behalf of a
class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired St. Joe securities, including purchasers and sellers
of options during the period from February 19, 2008 through
October 12, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

St. Joe, one of the largest real estate development companies in
Florida, is engaged in town and resort development, commercial and
industrial development and rural land sales.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as the
Florida real estate market was in decline, St. Joe was failing to
take adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs
on many of its Florida based property developments; (2) as a
result, St. Joe's financial statements materially overvalued the
Company's Florida based property developments; (3) the Company's
financial statements were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 13, 2010, David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital Inc.
detailed the need of the Company to take "substantial impairments"
and accounting writedowns on many of its properties, and warned
that further building by the Company would drive the stock price
to zero.  Mr. Einhorn's presentation noted that St. Joe's
"development plans have fallen flat, leaving it with 'ghost towns'
and inevitable writedowns."  For example, Mr. Einhorn said he
would "generously" place a value of $17.8 million on the remaining
residential development at St. Joe's Windmark Beach property,
while the Company is carrying the property at $164.5 million on
its balance sheet.  Mr. Einhorn also stated that the Company "was
'stuck' after making an aggressive bet on beachfront developments
that have gone nowhere, and that it was overvaluing the real
estate holdings on its books."

On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.38 per
share, or 9.7% on October 13, 2010.  The next trading day, the
Company's shares declined an additional $2.42 per share, or 10.9%,
to close at $19.74 per share.  Cumulatively over these two days,
St. Joe's shares declined a total of $4.80 per share, or over
19.5%.

If you are a shareholder who purchased St. Joe securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 3, 2011 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact Fei-Lu Qian at flqian@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free.  Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and
telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C., -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/-- is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  Founded by
the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions.  Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities frAU$, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


STEVE MADDEN: To Submit MOU for Court Approval Next Year
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Madden Ltd.'s memorandum of understanding to resolve a class
action lawsuit over overtime pay and mandated meal breaks will be
submitted for court approval in early 2011, the Company noted in
its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et
al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No.
BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws including,
among other things, failure to provide mandated meal breaks and
overtime pay to employees as required.

The parties have agreed to resolve the dispute in private
mediation and, on August 31, 2010, entered into a memorandum of
understanding which remains subject to court approval.

The memorandum of understanding is not expected to be submitted to
the court for approval until early 2011.  Based on the memorandum
of understanding, the Company has increased its reserve for the
related claim from $1,000,000 to $2,750,000.


SYNGENTA CROP: Court Gets Discovery Order Appeal in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
the appellate court at Mount Vernon has received the appeal of a
discovery order targeted by both sides and third parties in one of
a series of proposed class actions over the weed killer atrazine.

Lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District, defendant
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and non-parties to the suit
including the Heartland Institute took issue with a discovery
order signed in September by Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara
Crowder that sought to deal with discovery requests and subpoenas.

Holiday Shores is suing Syngenta and other makers and distributors
of atrazine over alleged water contamination it and other water
providers claim they must remediate.

Although the United State Environmental Protection Agency has
declared that atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts
per billion, the plaintiffs contend they and a class of water
providers have been damaged.

The plaintiffs also claim that concentrations of atrazine that are
lower than the EPA limit are harmful to human health.

The Syngenta case is one of six proposed class actions filed over
atrazine in Madison County six years ago by the lead plaintiff.

The Syngenta case has made the most progress to date because the
company is the primary maker of the herbicide.

Holiday Shores had subpoenaed and served discovery requests
related to Syngenta and atrazine on the Heartland Institute,
Illinois Farm Bureau and chemical industry trade groups.

The non-parties objected to the requests on First Amendment
grounds.

They asked Judge Crowder to quash the subpoenas.

After hearing arguments, Crowder issued a discovery order Sept. 22
in which the judge wrote she attempted to balance the First
Amendment concerns with what Holiday Shores could discover.

Both sides asked for clarification and eventually Crowder
certified questions for appeal submitted by the two tables.

Most recently, the farm bureau submitted its response to a Holiday
Shores discovery request Nov. 24.

It is also awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to that
filing.

Another third party in the suit, Du-Con is also seeking to quash a
defense discovery subpoena, claiming that Holiday Shores and not
Du-Con has the records Syngenta seeks.

The appellate court received the appeal Dec. 1, according to the
letter notifying Madison County dated two days later.

Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton and others represent Holiday
Shores.

Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta.

Mark Bell represents the Heartland Institute.

Christopher Byron represents the farm bureau.

Bob Perica represents Du-Con.

Although Crowder has overseen hearings and made rulings in the
case to date, the case was technically transferred to former
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's docket.

Judge Stack retired Friday.

Former Madison County State's Attorney William Mudge won
Judge Stack's seat in November's election.  He was sworn in
Monday.

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

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


TARGET CORP: Recalls 1,500 Circo Children's Space Camp Combo Pack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,500 Circo Children's Space Camp Combo Pack.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The floor of the tent failed a flammability test and poses a fire
hazard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves one model of the Circo Space Combo pack,
which includes a children's tent, sleeping bag, backpack and a
headlamp. The tent is green and dark blue with planets, stars and
figures printed on it.  The packing box has the UPC number:
490911500926, DPCI: 091-15-0092.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11060.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold
through Target stores nationwide and online at
http://www.target.com/from September 2010 through October 2010
for approximately $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tents and
return them to any Target store for a full refund or store credit.
For additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


UNITED STATES: Native Americans in Class Suit Face Long Wait
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz, writing for The Associated Press, reports Native
Americans who sued the federal government over lost royalties have
been waiting nearly 15 years for the $3.4 billion settlement
Congress passed last month.  Now they'll have to wait some more.

The plaintiffs expect it will be at least next August before
Indian trust landowners see a dime, and six months after that
before the last claims are settled with trust account holders.

That's because when the political wrangling ends, the red tape
begins.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Elouise Cobell of
Browning, Mont., said the biggest obstacle by far to the
settlement was obtaining congressional approval -- indeed, it took
nearly a year and a couple of false starts before the Senate
authorized the deal.

"I want to run out and thank the whole world for getting it
through the Senate," Ms. Cobell told The Associated Press.  "We
still have work to do.  One thing about this case, it hasn't been
easy.  You don't take anything for granted.  You make sure it all
gets approved."

Once President Barack Obama signs the legislation, the settlement
must still go through a gauntlet of court hearings, a media
campaign to notify beneficiaries, waiting periods for comments and
appeals.  Even after the first checks are cut, it will still take
months more to sort through the process of deciding who should or
should not be included as a plaintiff -- a number that will likely
end up somewhere between 300,000 and 550,000, plaintiffs'
representatives said.

"Making sure it is a fair process takes time," said Geoffrey
Rempel, an accountant consulting for Ms. Cobell's Washington,
D.C., legal team.

The dispute began over property owned by the Indians and held in
trust by the government.  The Department of Interior leases that
land to others for farming or resource development, and is
supposed to pay the Indians the money generated by the land into
Individual Indian Money trust accounts, or IIMs.

Those IIMs were created in 1887 by lawmakers who believed at the
time that Indians could not handle their own financial affairs.

But Ms. Cobell found there was no real accounting of how much
money was in the trust pool of IIM accounts.  She estimated the
amount of money mishandled, stolen or squandered from those
accounts over the last century may actually total more than $100
billion.

Under the settlement, $1.5 billion would go to individual Indian
account holders.  Another $1.9 billion would be used by the
government to buy up fractionated Indian lands from individual
owners willing to sell, and then turn those lands over to tribes.
Another $60 million would be used for a scholarship fund for
Indian students.

But it will take time to divvy up that $3.4 billion pie.

The White House said it has not picked a date to sign the
legislation which also includes a $1.2 billion settlement with
black farmers who say they were discriminated against.  The Cobell
plaintiffs said they expect the signing to happen this week.

If that happens, Mr. Rempel said, it will kick off a complicated
process that would span into early 2012 in a best-case scenario.

First, a preliminary court hearing would be scheduled for mid-
December.  That hearing would trigger a 30-day ramp-up notice to
buy advertisements and get the material together for the class
notification.

Under that time frame, the 90-day class notification period
involving ad campaigns would begin in January and run until April.
Another 30-day period is required after that to give the parties a
chance to respond to any questions that come up.

The settlement would then be finalized at a fairness hearing,
which would be held in May in this scenario.  Any beneficiary who
wished to comment on the settlement would be able to speak, and
the judge would then give his final ruling.

Another 60-day waiting period would follow that hearing, during
which time any party can appeal the court's ruling.  The deal is
final after that period elapses, which would be August in this
scenario.

Only then would the first checks go to the 337,000 plaintiffs in
the lawsuit's first class, the group known as the "historical
accounting class" who have been identified by the Department of
Interior since 1994, just before the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Rempel
said.

The historical class members would receive $1,000 each.

Then Mr. Rempel expects it to take another six months to determine
who is entitled to receive a portion of the settlement in the
second class of the lawsuit, the trust administration class.

Those plaintiffs, which can also include Indians from the
historical class, could receive anywhere between $500 to $1
million each, depending on the estimated value of their trust
accounts.

But the Interior Department has lost track of some beneficiary
records, have records that may be in conflict or have old
addresses for beneficiaries, Mr. Rempel said.

So the lead plaintiffs are expecting it to take another six months
to sort and decide the applications from Indians wishing to be
included in that class, Mr. Rempel said.

But even with all that red tape still ahead, Native Americans
should not let that dilute their victory, Ms. Cobell said.

"I just hope that they (the beneficiaries) get the word, they can
rejoice and feel that maybe justice has been delivered,"
Ms. Cobell said.


WASHINGTON COUNTY: Juvenile Center Faces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Justin McIntosh, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel,
reports a class-action lawsuit filed Monday claims eight youths
formerly held at the Washington County Juvenile Center were denied
basic necessities like water, medical attention and toilet paper
and subjected to excessively harsh punishment that left them
scarred physically and mentally.

The county, meanwhile, has agreed to enter mediation in the case,
which would expedite the lawsuit through the court system. It
would also result in the formation of a set of agreed-upon
practices for the juvenile center to follow in the future, said
Cincinnati-based attorney Al Gerhardstein, who's representing the
juveniles.

"That's unusual," he said.  "Normally, people spend their time
filing motions and delaying things.  I think (the county) deserves
a little credit for trying to get to the bottom of things
quickly."

The class-action lawsuit alleging gross mistreatment of inmates at
the juvenile center was filed Monday in a federal court in
Columbus.  The suit was filed on behalf of eight former inmates
and charges a number of county employees with wrongdoing.

Juvenile/Probate Judge Timothy A. Williams said in a release
Monday that he believes the center practices proper policies and
procedures.

Specifically named in the lawsuit are the county; its board of
commissioners; Williams; former juvenile center director Rae Ward;
interim director Brian Hesson; employees Brian Orders, Stephanie
Galati and Michelle Burkhart; and Dr. David Matthew Montgomery, a
contractor providing medical services to the center.  Another 20
employees of the county were included in the suit but not named.

Mr. Gerhardstein said the plaintiffs just want to make sure they
don't have to live through the conditions at the center again and
hope to keep others from experiencing them as well.

"(The plaintiffs) are fine with being accountable for their
misconduct; they just want to be treated fairly," he said.  "We
have an honest disagreement with the county about what's
appropriate.  But the county wants to hear us out and figure out
what those forms (of procedures) might be for the kids that are in
there now.

"We're not saying every kid is innocent of every type of
misconduct.  The focus is on giving youth appropriate
rehabilitation treatment that fits their problem, and certainly
these conditions, where you lock kids down 23 hours a day and put
them in shackles for the few minutes they're out of their cell,
can't be right.  That's a part of what we're challenging.  We just
want things done fairly."

Among the many complaints listed in the lawsuit are charges of
inhumane, illegal and abusive practices.

The lawsuit was filed late Monday afternoon and as a result many
of the officials named in the suit were not available for comment.

Judge Williams issued a release to The Marietta Times, saying the
court was disappointed to learn of the filing.

"Our top priority has always been to ensure the safety, health and
rehabilitation of all the juveniles entrusted to our care," the
release says.  "The Ohio Department of Youth Services has
routinely found the center to be in full compliance with the law
in their annual audits."

The release states the court believes the policies and procedures
practiced at the center are proper and appropriate.  In order to
avoid expending extensive resources defending the matter, the
center will meet with the plaintiffs in the suit for some
resolution, it says.

The plaintiffs were identified by initials, not their full names,
in the lawsuit.  They complained of many of the same charges,
including:

   -- Long hours in solitary confinement.

   -- Being forced to wear suicide gowns with nothing on
underneath, despite not being suicidal.

   -- Ignoring, delaying or providing inappropriate medical
treatment for needs such as cuts, depression or scabies.

   -- Having to clean gym floors with toothbrushes.

   -- Being denied regular education and recreation opportunities.

   -- Being called names like "stupid," "mama's boy,"
"snaggletooth," "hillbilly" and "worthless."

   -- Being forced to participate in recreation activities while
wearing shackles, which led to falls, cuts, bruises and scars.

   -- Being denied water and toilet paper as punishment.

Having to shower and use the restroom while juvenile center
employees of the opposite gender watched on a surveillance camera.

   -- Having to work at private, for-profit businesses -- like
Kmart, Wal-Mart, Holiday Inn and a strawberry farm -- without
proper equipment or compensation and doing work not appropriate
for their ages.

   -- Being denied clothes, bedding and heat while sleeping in
cells.

   -- Being locked in cells for 23 hours a day.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Global Power Named a Defendant in Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. has been named as a defendant in
a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that
allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions.

The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against the Company before that time.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Global Power Equipment Group Inc.
5199 N. Mingo Road
Tulsa, Okla. 74117
Telephone No.: (918) 488-0828

Description:

The Company designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and
auxiliary power equipment and provides routine and specialty
maintenance services to customers in the utility and industrial
sectors.


ASBESTOS ALERT: U.S. Auto Parts Network Unit Has Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts (WAG), is a named defendant in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960s and early 1970s that contained
asbestos.

WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 16, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

WAG maintained liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis.


COMPANY PROFILE:

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.
17150 South Margay Avenue
Carson, Calif. 90746
Telephone No.: (310) 735-0085
Website: http://www.usautoparts.net/

Description:

The Company is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts,
including body parts, engine parts, performance parts and
accessories.  Its flagship Web sites are located at
http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/and http://www.partstrain.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Cites $900,000 for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, had accrued
about US$900,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company had accrued about US$800,000 for
estimated future costs of asbestos removal or abatement at its
City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties.

The Company has removed or abated asbestos-containing building
materials from certain tenant and common areas at its City
National Plaza and Brookhollow properties.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos from various
areas of the building structures, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. owns,
manages, leases, acquires and develops real estate, consisting
primarily of office properties and related parking garages,
located in Southern California; Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia;
Northern Virginia; Houston; and Austin, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 18 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite
Manufacturing Co., is a defendant in 18 claims (10 of which
include the Company as a defendant) that allege bodily injury due
to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in
excess of 30 years ago.

Premix faced 17 claims (10 of which include the Company as a
defendant) that alleged bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos
contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010)

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers including both primary and carriers that have provided
liability coverage to it, including potential coverage for alleged
injuries relating to asbestos exposure.

Several of these insurance carriers are providing a defense to
Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of
these asbestos cases.  Certain of these underlying insurance
carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the
basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their
policies have been exhausted.

In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier seeks a
declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not
provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the
Company.  The carrier also asserts a claim for reimbursement of
defense costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on
our behalf in prior asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Fla., Imperial Industries, Inc.
manufactures and distributes building materials to building
materials dealers and others located primarily in Florida, and to
a lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,425 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple lawsuits -- with about 1,425 claimants -- are pending
related to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously made by RBS
Global, Inc.'s Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary continues to face two pending
multi-defendant lawsuits related to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.

There are about 3,700 individuals who have filed asbestos related
claims against Prager.  However, these claims are currently on the
Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.

To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
said it believes that the combination of its insurance coverage
and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs
of these matters.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces 190 Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit, through its successor entity, is a
defendant in about 190 lawsuits pending in state or federal court
in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by Falk.

There are about 560 claimants in these suits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits
under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the
costs to date.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,000 Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Zurn at Oct. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn division and an average of 80 unrelated
companies, as of Oct. 2, 2010, faced about 6,000 asbestos related
lawsuits representing about 28,500 claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers.  These claims are being handled pursuant to a
defense strategy funded by insurers.

As of Oct. 2, 2010, the Company estimates the potential liability
for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be about US$86
million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$67 million in the
next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated
liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Oct. 2, 2010, is about US$268
million.  However, principally as a result of the past insolvency
of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage
gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have
paid the first US$192 million of aggregate liabilities.  In order
for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from solvent
carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need to
satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims.

Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$268 million
of coverage, management estimates that it would need to satisfy an
additional US$80 million of asbestos claims.

As of Oct. 2, 2010, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$86 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that US$268 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$268 million.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. is named along with multiple other defendants, in
asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Menomonee Falls, Wis., Magnetek, Inc. provides
digital power control systems that are used to control motion and
power primarily in material handling, elevator and energy delivery
applications.  The Company's products consist primarily of
programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used on
the following applications: overhead cranes and hoists; elevators;
coal mining equipment; and renewable energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Case v. Ballantyne Strong Filed Aug. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is currently a defendant in an asbestos
case entitled Manuel H. Chinea and Janet M. Chinea v. American
Optical Company, Ballantyne Strong, Inc. a/k/a Ballantyne of
Omaha, et al., filed Aug. 17, 2010 in the Superior Court of the
State of New York.

The Company is one of 25 defendants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Ballantyne Strong, Inc. designs,
develops, manufactures, services and distributes theater and
lighting systems.  The Company's products are distributed to movie
exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks
and special venues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Scott Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation is one of over 100 defendants in Marie Lou
Scott's lawsuit pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury
from exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products.

The case is captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of
James T. Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the
Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in
September 2005.  The trial had initially been scheduled to begin
on April 30, 2007.

However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date has
been set.  As of October 2010, there have been no new developments
as this Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the
Company.

Headquartered in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.  The Company is currently organized into
one operating segment with multiple facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still Facing Jansen Lawsuit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation is named a defendant in a complaint filed on
June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Jansen v.
Beazer East, Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-6248 in the Milwaukee County
(Wisconsin) Circuit Court.

The plaintiff alleges that her husband suffered and died from
malignant mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos in his
workplace.  The plaintiff has sued seven alleged manufacturers or
distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston
Laboratories (formerly an independent company and now a division
of the Company).

The Company has filed an answer to the claim denying the material
allegations in the complaint.  The parties are currently engaged
in discovery.

Headquartered in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.  The Company is currently organized into
one operating segment with multiple facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Facing 300 Injury Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2010, was a co-defendant in
about 300 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,240
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.

There are five asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs, which
plead specified damages.  In each of the five cases, the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action.  In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of
US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million
for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
US$10 million.

In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages each in the amount of
US$10 million for seven separate causes of action.  In the fifth
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and
US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of US$20 million.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp.,
through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio
Industries, Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and
diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments:
Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Indus. Still Faces to 11 Cases in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in 11 asbestos
lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 325
individual plaintiffs.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case.  In all 11
cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in
the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in
Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis,
lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos
in products which were manufactured by each defendant.  In nine of
the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products.  Its commercial cleaning products are sold to
janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that supply end
users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Still Subject to 2.8T Sterling Fluid Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered about 2,800 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming,
Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California,
South Carolina and Canada to the Company for defense and
indemnification.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement.  Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased
the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company.

Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection
with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries.  The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.  The plaintiffs in the
cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products
containing asbestos in the course of their employment.

Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products
containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into
contact with a variety of different products in the course of
their employment.  Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a
former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or
Sterling may have manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one
settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the
position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products.  Its commercial cleaning products are sold to
janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that supply end
users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Facing 90 Active Lawsuits at Oct. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says there are about 90 asbestos cases of
former affiliate, LaBour Pump Company, which remain active as of
Oct. 1, 2010.

LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary
of the Company, has been named as a defendant in about 420 of the
New Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA).

The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of
which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products.  Its commercial cleaning products are sold to
janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that supply end
users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI's Liabilities Still at $17.7Mil at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$17,700,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's insurance for asbestos-related liabilities was
US$17,646,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s
Tape division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and
films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as
well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.  The Company
also designs and distributes wholesale jewelry and accessories to
specialty and department stores through its K&M subsidiary, while
its AB Canada subsidiary makes floor tile and rubber products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has 1,237 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
about 1,237 pending asbestos claims involving about 1,783
individuals as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 15, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile
division, which the Company sold to Congoleum Corporation in 1993.
The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company reported
221 new claims, 20 settlements, and 157 dismissals.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company reported 240 new claims,
25 settlements, 291 dismissals, and 1,193 ending claims.

The Company has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for
asbestos claims.  The total indemnity costs incurred to settle
claims were US$2 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2010 and US$5.7 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, all
of which were paid by the Company's first-layer excess umbrella
insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s
Tape division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and
films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as
well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.  The Company
also designs and distributes wholesale jewelry and accessories to
specialty and department stores through its K&M subsidiary, while
its AB Canada subsidiary makes floor tile and rubber products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Named in Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation Inc., including its subsidiaries, has been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago.

Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendant, together with hundreds of other
companies.  In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.  However, it has agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
the Company's Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and
motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the
Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company also is responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control
business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided
liability insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered
into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance
carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future
coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide administers the Kemper
buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement with the
Company to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper
buyout funds are depleted.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. provides
industrial automation power, control and information solutions
that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their
businesses.  The Company continues the business founded as the
Allen-Bradley Company in 1903.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Still Subject to Asbestos Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation continues to be subject to
environmental and asbestos exposure allegations and other
consumer-based claims, each of which may seek compensatory,
punitive or treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts),
as well as other types of relief.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 18, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Ill., Sears Holdings Corporation
is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  The Company is a broadline retailer with 2,206
full-line and 1,340 specialty retail stores in the United States,
operating through Kmart and Sears, and 456 full-line and specialty
retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a
90%-owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 83T Claims Pending v. Ashland Inc. at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 83,000 open asbestos claims during the year
ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 100,000 claims during the year
ended Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Nov. 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company faced 84,000 open asbestos-related claims during the
nine months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 103,000 open claims
during the nine months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary.

During the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 18,000 claims
dismissed.  During the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009, the
Company recorded 2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and
16,000 claims dismissed.

Total reserves for asbestos claims were $537 million at Sept. 30,
2010, compared with US$543 million at Sept. 30, 2009.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$421 million, of which US$56 million relates to
costs previously paid.  Receivables from insurers amounted to
US$422 million at Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s business consists
of five reportable segments: Ashland Aqualon Functional
Ingredients; Ashland Hercules Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials; Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline); and
Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Still Facing 20,000 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, faced 20,000 open asbestos-
related claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
21,000 open claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

During the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, Hercules had 1,000 claims.
Asbestos reserve was US$375 million.  During the year ended
Sept. 30, 2009, Hercules had 1,000 new claims filed and 7,000
claims dismissed.  Asbestos reserve was US$484 million.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s business consists
of five reportable segments: Ashland Aqualon Functional
Ingredients; Ashland Hercules Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials; Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline); and
Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Posts $66MM Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$66 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US61 million as
of Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed
on Nov. 24, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Current asbestos-related recoveries were US$18 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$16 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

Long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$55 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$47 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

Current asbestos-related recoveries were US$11 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$8 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a premier
global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for
the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.
The Company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway,
military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain
aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Claims Pending v. Maremont at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, faced
about 26,000 pending asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2010 and
Sept. 30, 2009.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought
by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure
to asbestos-containing products.

Maremont's reserves for pending and future claims was
US$67 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$61 million
at Sept. 30, 2009.  Asbestos-related insurance recoveries were
US$57 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$43 million
as of Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a premier
global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components to
original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket for the
commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.  The
Company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military,
bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets,
and light vehicle OEMs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Has Rockwell Int'l. Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. and many other companies have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
International products many years ago.

Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from
Rockwell in 1997.  Currently there are thousands of claimants in
lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other
companies, as defendants.

The Company determined that the probable liability for pending and
future claims over the next four years is US$17 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010 and US$16 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$9 million at
Sept. 30, 2010 and US$12 million at Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a premier
global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for
the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.
The Company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway,
military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain
aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Fuel Has $101MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Fuel Gas Company recorded US$101,618,000 asset retirement
obligations during the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with
US$91,373,000 during the year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company has recorded future asset retirement obligations
associated with the plugging and abandonment of natural gas
storage wells in the Pipeline and Storage segment and the removal
of asbestos and asbestos-containing material in various facilities
in the Utility and Pipeline and Storage segments.

Headquartered in Williamsville, N.Y., National Fuel Gas Company
explores for, produces, stores, transmits, and distributes natural
gas.  The Company's utility, National Fuel Gas Distribution
distributes gas to about 727,000 customers in New York and
Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WGL Holdings Has $174.5MM Sept. 30 ARO Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WGL Holdings, Inc. incurred asset retirement obligation
liabilities of US$174.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared
with US$766.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's asset retirement obligations include the costs to
cut, purge and cap its natural gas distribution system, remove
asbestos and plug storage wells upon their retirement.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., WGL Holdings, Inc.'s Washington
Gas Light utility distributes natural gas to more than one million
customers in Washington, D.C., and adjacent areas of Maryland and
Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Subject to Respirator Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation is subject to respirator liabilities, which
involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis,
silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting
from the use of respirators that are claimed to have been
negligently designed or labeled.

The Company has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical
Corporation in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction.  The
subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995.

In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

Other parties, including AO, AO's insurers, and another former
owner and its insurers -- Payor Group -- are responsible for
significant portions of the costs of these liabilities, leaving
the Company's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in only
some of the pending cases.

The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation in
July 1995.  The Company agreed to have the subsidiary retain
certain liabilities allocable to respirators used prior to the
1995 transaction so long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay,
Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000.  Aearo can discontinue payment
of the fee at any time, in which case it will assume the
responsibility for and indemnify the Company against the
liabilities allocable to respirators manufactured and used prior
to the 1995 transaction.

The Company anticipates that it will continue to receive payment
of the US$400,000 fee from Aearo and thereby retain these
liabilities for the foreseeable future.  The Company has no
liability in connection with any products manufactured by Aearo
after 1995.

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009,

There were about 45,000 claimants as of Sept. 30, 2010 and 47,000
claimants as of Sept. 30, 2009 in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products.

The Company has recorded on a net present value basis a US$15
million reserve (US$20 million on an undiscounted basis) to cover
its estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator
claims.  Cash payments related to this liability were about US$2
million in each of fiscal 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Headquartered in Boston, Cabot Corporation is a global specialty
chemicals and performance materials company.  Its principal
products are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal
oxides, tantalum and related products, inkjet colorants, aerogels
and cesium formate drilling fluids.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Refining Co. Posts $400,000 for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Refining Company, during the fiscal year ended Aug. 31,
2010, recorded US$400,000 for asbestos abatement, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Nov. 29, 2010 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Warren, Pa., United Refining Company is an
integrated refiner and marketer of petroleum products in its
primary market area, which encompasses western New York and
northwestern Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Facing 97 Open Actions at Dec. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were a total of 97 asbestos ases pending against Met-Pro
Corporation as of Dec. 2, 2010 (with a majority of those cases
pending in Mississippi, Pennsylvania and New York), as compared
with 106 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2010.

There were a total of 74 asbestos cases pending against the
Company (with a majority of those cases pending in Mississippi and
New York) as of Aug. 26, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10,
2010)

Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.  The complaints allege that the Company,
along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified
asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions
which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the
plaintiffs.

Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more
serious claims of mesothelioma.  The Company has been dismissed
from or settled a large number of these cases.

The sum total of all payments through Dec. 2, 2010 to settle these
cases involving asbestos-related claims was US$612,500, all of
which have been paid by the Company's insurers including legal
expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$34,000.

For the Feb. 1, 2010 through Dec. 2, 2010 period, about 47 new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed (some of which were without prejudice) from 55 cases and
settled one case.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules
leading to, or are scheduled for trial.

During the three months ended Oct. 31, 2010, a rehabilitation
order was entered against one of the Company's insurers, based
upon its alleged insolvency.

Headquartered in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corporation
manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control
equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling
equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids,
and filtration and purification products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Issues $51T Fine v. David H. Koch Theater
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has cited the David H. Koch Theater, located at the
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in Manhattan, for alleged
repeat and serious violations of workplace health and safety
standards, according to an OSHA press release dated Dec. 2, 2010.

The theater faces a total of US$51,000 in proposed fines, chiefly
for asbestos, fall and crushing hazards identified during an OSHA
inspection prompted by worker complaints.

OSHA's inspection found that employees of the theater and of
outside contractors had not been informed of the presence of
asbestos-containing and potentially asbestos-containing materials
in the theater's promenade area and in nearby electrical closets.
The materials had not been labeled and asbestos warning signs had
not been posted.

In addition, an exit door was stuck and unable to be used, and a
portable fire extinguisher was not mounted.  As these conditions
were similar to those cited by OSHA during a 2009 inspection of
the theater, they resulted in the agency issuing the theater four
repeat citations with US$45,000 in proposed fines.

Kay Gee, OSHA's Manhattan area director, said, "The recurrence of
these conditions is disturbing.  For the health and safety of its
employees as well as outside contractors, the theater must take
effective steps to identify and permanently eliminate these and
other hazards identified during this latest OSHA inspection."

OSHA also found that, due to a lack of guarding, theater employees
were exposed to falls into the orchestra pit when the stage was
raised above the pit, and to being struck or crushed by the stage
when it descended into the pit.  These conditions, plus the use of
temporary wiring in place of permanent lighting in the promenade
area, resulted in OSHA also issuing the theater three serious
citations with US$6,000 in proposed fines.

Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York, said,
"One means of eliminating hazards such as these is for employers
to establish an illness and injury prevention program, in which
workers and management jointly work to identify and eliminate
hazardous conditions on a continual basis."

The theater has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and
proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with
OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the
independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.  The
inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office,
telephone 212-620-3200.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scranton Property Owner to Follow Cleanup Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered the owner of
an abandoned factory known as the Hillcrest Building, located on
the 500 block of Hillcrest Drive, Old Forge, Pa., to comply with
asbestos cleanup regulations, according to an EPA press release
dated Dec. 6, 2010.

The building's owner, Walter Stocki, of Old Forge, Pa., allegedly
violated the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Asbestos by demolishing portions of the Hillcrest
Building without taking precautions to minimize the airborne
release of asbestos.

EPA ordered Mr. Stocki to secure the site and cease all activities
that might cause further release of asbestos fibers; ensure that
the building and exterior dumpster are sealed; and post warning
signs around the building until a cleanup is performed.  The order
also directs Mr. Stocki to submit to EPA a work plan within seven
days.

In June 2010 and August 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection conducted two inspections and issued two
notices of violation to Mr. Stocki for violating asbestos
regulations by demolishing, without proper notice or precautions.

EPA conducted a follow-up inspection on Nov. 17, 2010 and
confirmed that the property was still contaminated with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aston University Penalized for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aston University, a Birmingham, England-based university has been
fined, along with a security systems firm, after two workers were
exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers while fitting CCTV cameras,
according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated
Dec. 3, 2010.

The worker and a 17-year-old trainee were installing the cameras
in the reception area at Aston University's Recreation Centre on
July 21, 2009 when they drilled into material containing asbestos
fibers.

Both the university and Warwickshire-based Access Fire and
Security Ltd -- the contractor carrying out the work -- were
prosecuted by the HSE following the incident.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard the university failed to
follow its own procedures on managing, planning and preparing for
the installation and the arrangements were unclear and not widely
known within the university.

Aston University, of Aston Triangle, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to
breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety
Regulations 1999 and Regulation 4(9)(c) of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP4,000 and ordered to pay
GBP2,000 costs.

Access Fire and Security Ltd, which operates from a unit in Henley
Court, Henley-in-Arden, and is registered at an address in Yardley
Wood, Billesley, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and
was fined GBP1,000 and ordered to pay GBP1,000 costs.

Karl Raw, the investigating inspector at HSE, said, "While the
amount of asbestos involved in this incident was small, two people
now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill from
lung disease in the future.

"Aston University failed to ensure university employees and others
working across the site were aware of the presence of asbestos
fibers.

"Surveys on the location and conditions of asbestos and materials
containing asbestos had been carried out across the university but
there was no procedure for communicating the details to
contractors.

"Access Fire and Security Ltd, a long-term contractor with the
university, had never been given any information about asbestos -
and had never asked for it.  They also failed to assess whether
asbestos was present, what type of asbestos was involved and what
condition it was in, before undertaking work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moore's Case for Compensation Ongoing in London
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Alan Moore, a former Cambridge United manager, has
launched asbestos-related legal proceedings in the Royal Courts of
Justice in London, Cambridge-news.co.uk reports.

East Anglian solicitors Kester Cunningham John filed the case on
behalf of the family.

Mr. Moore was first player-coach and then player-manager of
Cambridge United from December 1959 until October 1963.  He died
in 2008 at the age of 81.

Mr. Moore's family and lawyers believe exposure to asbestos while
working as an electrician for six years in the 1940s was a serious
contributory factor to the ill-health and discomfort he suffered,
and to his death.

Mr. Moore and his wife Miriam made Cambridge their home from the
early 1960s.  He helped oversee the Club's transition into a
professional side in the 1960s and later managed Great Shelford
and Histon football clubs.

Mr. Moore started his working life in Tyne and Wear where as an
electrician, his family claims, he was exposed to asbestos when
working on repairing ships at Palmers Hebburn Co.

Simon Davis, who is representing the Moores, told the News, "Alan
was a very fit man but at the end did suffer from terrible
breathing difficulties.  It is well-known that asbestos-related
disease can lie dormant for many years before manifesting itself.
In Alan's case he first experienced significant asbestos-related
respiratory disability in early 2007.

"This became increasingly debilitating towards the end of his
life, and it is our belief had he not contracted the disease, he
would have been able to enjoy at least another two years with, and
providing for, his family."

Mr. Moore had also played for several clubs including Sunderland,
Nottingham Forest, Hull City, Coventry City and Swindon Town.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standby Facility of AU$320MM for AICF Formalized
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE noted that the New South Wales
Government and the Australian Government, on Dec. 7, 2010,
announced that a standby loan facility of up to AU$320 million for
the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund has been formalized,
according to a Company press release dated Dec. 7, 2010.

The standby loan facility will assist the AICF to meet short-term
funding shortfalls, and to continue to make payments to claimants
should contributions made by Hardie under the Amended and Restated
Funding Agreement be insufficient to maintain liquidity in the
fund.

Drawing under the standby loan facility is conditional on the AFFA
being varied to reflect the arrangements entered into in
connection with this facility and the Australian Taxation Office
providing Hardie and the AICF with private rulings to replace
those previously issued in connection with the AFFA and
confirmation that the accepted tax conditions -- as defined in the
AFFA -- will remain unchanged in all material respects.

It has been agreed with the NSW Government that Hardie and the
AICF will apply to the ATO for the relevant rulings.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the NSW Parliament passed the James Hardie Former
Subsidiaries (Winding up and Administration) Amendment Act 2009 to
authorize and approve the standby loan facility, associated
guarantees and security arrangements.

Hardie notes that the provision of the proposed standby loan
facility to the AICF does not reduce the Company's obligations
under the AFFA.  The obligation to pay claimants remains with
AICF, and it is anticipated that its primary source of funding
will continue to be contributions for Hardie.

In addition, Hardie anticipates that, based on its fiscal year
2011 results to date, it expects to make a contribution to the
AICF, in accordance with the AFFA, in 2011.

Hardie made a contribution of about AU$72.8 million --
US$63.7 million -- to the AICF on July 1, 2010.  The amount
represented 35 percent of the Company's free cash flow for fiscal
year 2010, as defined by the AFFA.  Since the AICF was established
in February 2007, the Company has contributed AU$375 million to
the fund.

The Company is also contributing AU$500,000 a year for 10 years
towards medical research into the prevention, treatment and cure
of asbestos diseases, and AU$75,000 a year for 10 years for an
education program to inform home renovators of the risks
associated with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Downer EDI to Pay Workers While Hazard Removed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Downer EDI Limited, which builds trains, has agreed to continue
paying employees who refuse to work due to asbestos contamination
fears at its Cardiff, New South Wales, Australia, rail workshops,
ABC News reports.

On Dec. 6, 2010, the Company told workers at a mass meeting that
it would isolate the stores area of the plant until it can be
decontaminated tomorrow.  The Company has assured employees it
will not dock their pay if they decide not to work until air
monitoring results give the all clear.

Jim O'Neill from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union says
things should return to normal by the end of the week.  He said,
"It'll depend on what happens with the air monitoring that's
taking place today in and around the stores areas and testing of
samples and air monitoring in other areas of the plant."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Shipyards to Pay Fenech Family EUR103,114
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Malta, on Dec. 3, 2010, ordered Malta
Shipyards to pay Dorothy Fenech and the rest of her family
EUR103,114 in compensation for the asbestos-related death of her
father, Joseph Fenech, at the age of 55, the Times of Malta
reports.

The Appeals Court, on Dec. 3, 2010, also confirmed previous
judgments.

The Court found that the dockyard had failed to provide the
required safety measures against asbestos.  It found that the
shipyard did not provide any protective clothing or masks to Mr.
Fenech, who died in 1997 from mesothelioma.

The appeal had been filed by the shipyards after, in 2006, a civil
court ruled in favor of Mr. Fenech's wife Carmena and his children
Dorothy and James, who had started legal proceedings in June 1997,
four months after Mr. Fenech died.

The company also appealed a second judgment -- handed down in 2008
-- where it was ordered by a civil court to pay EUR103,114 in
damages to the Fenech family.

Mr. Fenech worked at the shipyard for 36 years, having started as
yard boy in 1959 and worked his way up to boilermaker until he
opted for an early retirement scheme in 1995.

Three years before retiring, he started suffering from shortness
of breath, lack of appetite and also developed a cough.  Medical
tests revealed Mr. Fenech was suffering from malignant
mesothelioma.  The cancer spread and he died in 1997.

Ms. Fenech thanked ex-Prime Minister Karm Mifsud Bonnici who, as a
lawyer, had started the case and her lawyer, Juliette Galea, for
all their help and support.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Environmental Exposure" Ruled in Tuck's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Dorset coroner Michael Johnston ruled that Audrey Linda Tuck,
a former care home manager, may have contracted mesothelioma
through hugging her husband while he was covered in asbestos dust,
the Daily Echo reports.

Mrs. Tuck, of Bournemouth Road, Charlton Marshall near Blandford,
England, died at the age of 77 in Dorset County Hospital,
Dorchester, earlier in 2010.

Mr. Johnston said that Mrs. Tuck, in an interview before she died,
said she could not remember ever working in close contact with
asbestos dust.  However, the inquest heard she did recall her
husband Paul, a farm manager, had once worked on a project that
involved renovating a poultry house into a piggery.

Mr. Johnston said Mrs. Tuck remembered her husband being "very
hands on" during the renovation and came home with his hair,
eyebrows and clothes covered in asbestos dust from work.  The
inquest heard Mrs. Tuck used to hug her husband when he came home
from working on the project and also shook out and washed his
clothes.

Mr. Johnston said that because Mrs. Tuck had not come into contact
with asbestos dust through her work he had to record her death as
being due to an "environmental exposure" to asbestos.  He added
that this probably came as a result of close contact with asbestos
dust on her husband's clothes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $18T Fine for Logan Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a total
of US$18,000 in penalties in connection with environmental
violations during an asbestos removal project at a residence at
3551 SW Logan St., Portland, Ore., in September 2010, according to
an Oregon DEQ press release dated Dec. 8, 2010.

DEQ issued an US$8,400 penalty to Vidovic Enterprises Inc. (d/b/a
Superior Siding Solutions) for allowing Richard Heup Construction,
a Battle Ground, Wash.-based contractor without the required
license, to perform an asbestos abatement project at the
residence.  At the time of the violation, Vidovic Enterprises was
responsible for the renovation project being performed at this
house.

Richard Neal Heup and his employees removed cement asbestos board
siding, improperly handling the siding and causing it to break
apart.  Mr. Heup also failed to handle the asbestos-containing
waste properly.

DEQ issued a US$9,600 penalty to Richard Neal Heup, doing business
as Richard Heup Construction, for performing an asbestos abatement
project without a license.

DEQ issued the penalties because this abatement project did not
comply with applicable state asbestos regulations, and likely
caused the release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.

Both Vidovic Enterprises Inc. and Richard Neal Heup have appealed
their penalties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NPWS, BMCC Seek Info on Dump at Blue Mountains
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Blue Mountains
City Council appeal to the Blue Mountains community in New South
Wales, Australia, for information on the recent illegal dumping of
asbestos in and around the Blue Mountains National Park, the Blue
Mountains Gazette reports.

NPWS Upper Blue Mountains Area manager Richard Kingswood said he
was frustrated by the complete lack of regard for the environment
and health of local residents displayed in such careless acts.  He
said, "The costs of getting caught for illegal dumping are great,
with fines as high as AU$1 million for corporations and AU$250,000
for individuals, but the potential cost to people's health is even
higher."

Mr. Kingswood said disposing of asbestos sheeting must be done
properly in a safe manner and depending on the size, may need to
be handled by a licensed operator.

Blue Mountains mayor Daniel Myles also expressed his concern at
the reckless disregard of dumpers, stating "the dumping of any
rubbish in our bush land is irresponsible but to dump a
substantial amount of hazardous waste such as asbestos defies
belief."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Govt. Seeks Inquiry on Asbestos at Molonglo
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Capital Territory Government has tasked Auditor-
General Tu Pham to investigate "significant errors" leading up to
the discovery of 90,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated waste at a
Molonglo public building project, The Canberra Times reports.

However, the Opposition says the inquiry is a cynical move
designed to "hang officials out to dry" while avoiding ministerial
responsibility for the mess.

The Canberra Times revealed on Dec. 4, 2010 the waste had been
found in the ground at the North Weston Pond building site and
that work on the project had been halted.  Builders excavating the
site also found the buried but near-intact buildings of the former
Weston Sewage Treatment Works, structures that had been thought to
have been completely demolished.

Initial scoping studies of the site, which was used as a dumping
ground for builders as far back as 1978, found 500 tons of
asbestos, but clearly missed the much larger deposit of the
material.

Now Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has called in Auditor-General Tu
Pham, asking for an investigation into the discovery of asbestos,
which led to workers being ordered off site on Dec. 2, 2010 and
redeployed to other building jobs around Molonglo.

On initial estimates, the waste could cost up to AU$17 million to
remove safely, blowing out the cost of building the pond from
AU$20 million to AU$37 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 53 New Lawsuits Filed in St. Clair as of Dec. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 53 new asbestos-related cases were filed in St. Clair
County, Ill., as of Dec. 1, 2010, compared with a total of four
new asbestos cases filed in 2009, The Madison/St. Clair Record
reports.

Most of the cases have been filed by Judy Cates, Esq., of
Belleville, Richard Saville, Esq., of Alton and Randy Gori, Esq.,
of Edwardsville.

Presiding Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson was assigned to the
asbestos docket in the wake of Circuit Judge Patrick Young's
retirement.  Before Judge Young, Circuit Judge Robert LeChien
oversaw asbestos cases in St. Clair County.

Meanwhile, neighboring Madison County has seen a steady number of
cases added to its already heavy asbestos docket.  As of Oct. 27,
2010, about 650 asbestos cases had been filed in Madison County.

Long-time asbestos chief Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack
retired on Dec. 3, 2010 after six years heading Madison's packed
docket.

The docket hit an all-time high just prior to Judge Stack's tenure
at 953 the year before he took over the docket from then-Madison
County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron.

The numbers dipped into the 300s following Judge Byron's
retirement but have been going up since 2007.  In 2009, there were
814 asbestos cases filed in Madison County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon State Hospital to Undergo Hazard Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 127-year-old Oregon State Hospital in Salem, Ore., must
undergo asbestos abatement before demolition, Mesothelioma.com
reports.

The Oregon State Hospital in Salem became famous when it made its
film debut in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."  However, Oregon
officials said that the dilapidated asylum will be replaced with a
new hospital.

Forty percent of the building has been deemed unusable and major
problems, such as toxic paint, a leaky roof and asbestos, plague
the facility.

The new facility will mimic daily life outside the institution as
much as possible.  It will offer sensitivity rooms with adjustable
lighting and music, where patients can calm down, and the
imprisoning metal bars have been replaced with shatterproof
windows.  Patients will also have their own rooms.

The most architecturally significant part of the old hospital will
be renovated and will eventually house a mental health museum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Glan Clwys Hospital to Commence 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of asbestos from ceilings above theaters and corridors at
Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire, Wales, will start
in 2011, BBC News Wales reports.

A spokesman for Betsi Cadwaladr Local Health Board said the
asbestos posed no "immediate risk" to patients' safety.  Emergency
and elective surgery will continue despite the disruption.

The Health Board said medical staff will lead the planning to make
sure patients can access care during the work.  The work is
expected to be completed by next winter.

A spokesman for the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board said,
"We would like to reassure patients, visitors and staff that there
is no immediate risk to their safety."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at North Queensland Schools Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Works Minister Robert Schwarten said Queensland's State
Government is working hard to remove asbestos from schools in far
north Queensland, ABC News reports.

Opposition public works spokesman Andrew Cripps has criticized the
State Government for not doing enough.  He says the Government
needs to prioritize the safety of students and teachers in schools
that still have asbestos.

However, Mr. Schwarten says Mr. Cripps does not realize the
Government has been removing asbestos from school buildings during
the holidays for the past 12 years.  He said, "There is no
different system this time and about AU$800,000 of asbestos will
be removed from schools in this region alone, so I suggest he
hasn't got a clue what's going on."

Mr. Schwarten says the State Government has always used the
holidays to remove asbestos.

                             *********

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  * * *