CAR_Public/111104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 219

                             Headlines

ADOLOR CORP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Cubist
APPLE INC: Settles iTunes(R) Gift Card Class Action
CIBER INC: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Colorado
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Defends "Roswell" Suit in New Mexico
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending 3 Securities Suits Before Same Judge

D & K REAL: Failed to Disclose Citations to Tenants, Suit Says
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of Fixing Prices for Auto Wire Systems
DRUG STORES: Object to W.Va.'s Bid to Hear Suit in State Court
ENERGY FUTURE: Dismissed in July as Party in Katrina-Related Suit
EQUINIX INC: Appellant Asserts Standing in IPO-Related Class Suit

EQUINIX INC: "Cement Masons" Suit Remains Pending in California
FIRST MIDWEST: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action
GENTEK BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Defective Steel Siding
HICKORY SPRINGS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
HIRANI CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over NYPD's Precinct House Project

KAISER HOSPITAL: Blumenthal Files Overtime Class Action
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
LITHIA MOTORS: "Neese" Class Suit Remains Pending in Alaska
LITHIA MOTORS: Still Awaits Deal Approval in Text Messages Suit
MICHAEL V. LOMBARDI: H-2B Visa Workers File Class Action

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Dallas Amends Filing Fee Class Action
NISOURCE INC: Has Funded All Claims in "Tawney" Settlement
NORTHERN STATES: Defending 2nd Katrina-Related Suit in Mississippi
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Autism Class Action Can Proceed
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 8

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Unit Continues to Defend Fuel Recovery Suit
RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Del.
SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suits in West Virginia
SOLUTIA INC: Suits Related to W.G. Krummrich Site Remain Pending
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Second "Hurricane Katrina" Suit Still Pending

TRAVELZOO INC: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
WADDELL & REED: Unit Remains a Defendant in FLSA-Related Suit
WEST BANCORPORATION: Class Suit vs. West Bank Remains Pending

* Dworken & Bernstein Continues to Fight for Cy Pres Doctrine


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Kaiser Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Rodarmel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court Upholds $120,883 Award in AMS Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Obriecht OK'd to Proceed With Retaliation Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Denies Harried Couple's Remand Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Lawsuits v. APV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Granted in Clineff
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Upholds Dismissal of Mayton's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Move to Remand in Ellis Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Rulings in Shehadeh Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Records $114MM Reserves Increase
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Still Has Insurance-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.533-Bil. Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Indus. Records $575MM Settlement at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Has $155MM Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $1.574-Bil. Long-Term Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $38MM Sept. 30 Litigation Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $685MM Sept. 30 NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Facing Coverage Action in N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces 22.8T Bendix Claims at Sept. 30




                          *********

ADOLOR CORP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Cubist
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 26, 2011, Adolor Corporation was served with a putative
class action lawsuit purportedly filed on behalf of its
stockholders in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit names Adolor, each member of its Board of Directors
and Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Cubist"), as defendants and
alleges the directors' breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Adolor by Cubist.  The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief.  The Company expects that
additional complaints relating to the Cubist acquisition could be
filed as well.  The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this action and any future
related actions.


APPLE INC: Settles iTunes(R) Gift Card Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit (Johnson
v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1-09-CV-146501, California Superior
Court, Santa Clara) that could amount to over $50 million dollars
in payouts.

According to the St. Louis-based law firm of Onder, Shelton,
O'Leary & Peterson, LLC the lawsuit claimed that Apple advertised
and sold gift cards which stated that if one purchased and used
the gift card, all songs purchased at Apple's online iTunes(R)
Store would cost 99› per song.  The lawsuit further claimed that
in April, 2009, Apple raised the price of certain songs at the
iTunes(R) store, yet refused to honor the promised 99› price when
the gift cards were redeemed.  In addition, the company continued
to sell iTunes(R) gift cards with the phrase, "Songs are 99›"
printed on them.

Consumers who were overcharged for iTunes songs while using
iTunes(R) 99› gift cards are now eligible to receive an iTunes(R)
Store credit in the amount of $3.25 after completing the simple
iTunes(R) class action lawsuit online claim form.  Millions of
e-mails are currently being sent to persons who may have used
affected gift cards to purchase songs from the iTunes(R) Store.
Apple, Inc. denied all allegations in the lawsuit and has asserted
many defenses.  The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing
or any indication that any law was violated.  Nevertheless, for
eligible claimants, Apple has agreed to provide an iTunes(R) Store
credit in the amount of $3.25 to all settlement class members who
qualify and submit a valid claim form.

Originally filed by Gabriel Johnson, the lawsuit now represents a
significant class of claimants.  In order to qualify as a
claimant, individuals must have used an iTunes(R) 99› gift card to
purchase one or more songs for $1.29 on or before May 10, 2010.
The gift card must have advertised iTunes(R) songs at a cost of
$0.99 each.  It is not necessary to still have the gift card or
proof of purchase in order to make a claim.  Although only U.S.
citizens are eligible to make a claim, there is no minimum age
required to request the iTunes(R) credit.  Because the lawsuit
involved gift cards, it is believed that many if not most of the
customers who received a diminished value of their gift cards were
children, teenagers and college students.  Valid claims will be
awarded an iTunes store credit of $3.25, which may be used toward
any purchase from the online store.  Claims may be made at
http://www.johnsonitunessettlement.com/


CIBER INC: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm commenced a class action
lawsuit on October 28, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of CIBER, Inc.
between December 15, 2010, and August 3, 2011.  The action is
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CIBER purports to be a global information technology consulting,
services, and outsourcing company applying practical innovation
through services and solutions that deliver tangible results for
both commercial and government clients.  CIBER is a Delaware
corporation with principal executive offices located in Greenwood
Village, Colorado.

The complaint alleges that beginning on December 15, 2010, the
Company, along with certain officers at CIBER, issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements to investors designed
to deceive the market and cause shares of CIBER to trade at
artificially high prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that officials at the Company
failed to disclose to investors material adverse facts that: (1)
CIBER lacked the operational discipline, process, and controls to
properly evaluate the financial impact of its legacy contracts and
the performance of its North American operations and, as such, had
no basis to make positive statements about the Company's financial
health and future growth; (2) CIBER could not achieve its reported
business outlook and aggressive guidance due to the fact that
unprofitable legacy fixed-price contracts would drag down the
Company's revenue and earnings; and (3) the Company's declining
sales in its North American division would continue throughout the
2011 transitional period and adversely affect the Company's 2011
financial results.

On August 3, 2011, CIBER announced disappointing financial results
for the second quarter of 2011 that showed that the Company was
performing well below expectations.  As a result, CIBER was forced
to suspend its financial guidance for 2011.  On this news, shares
of CIBER lost over 23% of their value to close on August 3, 2011,
at just $3.94 a share.  As revelations continue to emerge, shares
of CIBER continue to decline in value with the Company's stock
recently closing as low as $2.78 per share on October 3, 2011.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CIBER stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from November 1, 2011.  To discuss
your shareholder rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del
Gaizo at 800-350-6003 or via the shareholder information form.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- represents
individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct,
and class action lawsuits.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Defends "Roswell" Suit in New Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc., continues to defend a class action
lawsuit commenced by Roswell Hospital Corporation in New Mexico,
according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On April 19, 2009, the Company was served in Roswell, New Mexico,
with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros).  The case
was originally filed as a collection matter.  The counterclaim was
filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort,
Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO
statute.  On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal
to federal court. On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to state
court for lack of a federal question.  A motion to dismiss and a
motion to dismiss misjoined counterclaim plaintiffs were filed on
October 20, 2009.  These motions were denied.  Extensive discovery
has been conducted.  A motion for class certification for all
uninsured patients was heard on March 3 through March 5, 2010, and
on April 13, 2010, the state district court judge certified the
case as a class action.  Numerous hearings have been conducted to
assess the sufficiency of the methodology used to determine class
damages.  The Company says it is vigorously defending this action.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending 3 Securities Suits Before Same Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
The three class action securities lawsuits filed against Community
Health Systems, Inc., in Tennessee were assigned to the same judge
as related cases, according to the Company's October 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases
have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash,
filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 12, 2011; and
Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash and Thomas Mark
Buford, filed June 2, 2011.  All three seek class certification
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the
Company's common stock.  On September 20, 2011, all three were
assigned to the same judge as related cases.

The Company believes all of these matters are without merit and
will vigorously defend them.


D & K REAL: Failed to Disclose Citations to Tenants, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Winn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. D & K Real Estate Service Corp., Case No. 2011-CH-37852 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 1, 2011) is brought on behalf of a
class that consists of all tenants and former tenants at the
apartment building located at 180 N. Jefferson, in Cook County, in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not provide written
disclosures, including citations for code violations, required by
the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance before entering
into leases with him and the Class members.  Mr. Winn also asserts
that the Defendant never disclosed to him the name of the
financial institution where his security deposit for the use of
the Community Room was held.

Mr. Winn leased an apartment unit from the Defendant.

The Defendant owns the Chicago apartment building in which the
Plaintiff leased a unit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256-2050
          E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of Fixing Prices for Auto Wire Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Kelly and Tye Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Delphi Automotive LLP, Furukawa
Electric Co., Ltd., Lear Corp., Leoni AG, Sumitomo Electric
Industries, Ltd., S-Y Systems Technologies GMBH, Yazaki Corp., and
Yazaki North America Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-05301 (N.D. Calif.,
October 31, 2011) arises out of an alleged long-running conspiracy
extending from at least January 1, 2000, through at least
January 1, 2010, at minimum, among the Defendants and their co-
conspirators, the purpose and effect of which was to rig bids for,
and to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices, of automotive
wire harnesses and related products sold indirectly to the
Plaintiffs and other Class members.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants and their co-
conspirators formed an international cartel illegally to restrict
competition in the automotive wire harness and related products
market, specifically targeting and injuring indirect-purchaser
consumers and affecting billions of dollars of commerce throughout
the United States of America.  As a result of the Defendants' bid-
rigging and price-fixing conduct, the Plaintiffs argue that they
and class members have been injured in their business and property
by paying more for automotive wire harnesses that they would
otherwise have paid in the absence of the Defendants' conspiracy.

Craig Kelly is a resident of California.  Tye Smith is a resident
of Arizona.  The Plaintiffs purchased one or more automotive wire
harness systems indirectly from one or more of the Defendants
during the Class Period, for end use and not for resale.

Delphi and Lear are Delaware corporations, while Yazaki North
America is an Illinois corporation.  Furukawa, Sumitomo and Yazaki
Corp. are Japanese corporations.  Leoni and S-Y Systems are German
corporations.  The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell
automotive wire Harness systems throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          Craig C. Corbitt, Esq.
          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
          Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
          Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com
                  ccorbitt@zelle.com
                  cmicheletti@zelle.com
                  jzahid@zelle.com
                  hrankie@zelle.com


DRUG STORES: Object to W.Va.'s Bid to Hear Suit in State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group of
drug stores is objecting to a federal magistrate judge's
recommendation that a class action lawsuit filed against it by a
West Virginia firm should be heard in state court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled earlier
this year that the district court should determine if the motion
to remand the case to state court was filed in a timely fashion.
It took Bailey & Glasser of Charleston, W.Va., 104 days after the
case was removed to federal court to ask for its remand.

Magistrate Judge Janie Mayeron wrote last month that plaintiffs
attorneys didn't realize they had a reasonable basis for pursuing
remand until a Michigan federal court remanded three similar
lawsuits.

"That Plaintiffs have no legitimate response is highlighted by the
various ephemeral responses they have offered -- the proverbial
moving target," says the drug stores' objection, filed on Oct. 27.

"In their opening brief on remand, Plaintiffs argued that they had
noticed their remand motion for hearing 'the day following the
Michigan district court's decision' remanding a similar case on
the basis of the local controversy provision.

"In other words, Plaintiffs wanted this court to believe that
their counsel was incapable of reading (the Class Action Fairness
Act's) statutory text, and only capable of realizing 'that the
same threshold issue needed to be addressed and resolved in this
case' after the Michigan decision was issued."

The drug stores -- which include CVS, Target and Wal-Mart -- are
alleged to have not passed savings on generic drugs to consumers.
They argue that the plaintiffs continued to litigate the case
after it was removed and only asked for remand after former U.S.
District Judge James Rosenbaum dismissed the complaint.

Judge Rosenbaum allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint then
granted remand.  When the drug stores appealed, the Eighth Circuit
said the district court should rule on the timeliness issue.
Judge Michael Davis was assigned the case after Judge Rosenbaum
retired.

In November 2009, Judge Rosenbaum was annoyed that the complaint,
filed against 13 defendants on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, contained specific pricing
information about only two of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis.  There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Judge Rosenbaum said.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that. It's not only laughable, it's
absolutely reprehensible.

"There's not a lawsuit here.  There is not a claim.  There is not
an allegation.  I've got words on a page."

The lawsuits in Michigan were dismissed by a state judge because
the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West
Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The firm is also representing West Virginia Attorney General
Darrell McGraw's office in a suit filed in the Mountain State.
Currently, the two sides are fighting over whether the lawsuit
should be heard in federal court, with the drug stores claiming it
is a class action.  They have appealed a Fourth Circuit ruling to
the U.S. Supreme Court.


ENERGY FUTURE: Dismissed in July as Party in Katrina-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp. was dismissed in July 2011 as a
defendant in the class action lawsuit over the destructive force
of Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's October 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In October 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
issued a decision in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil USA reversing
the district court's dismissal of the case and holding that
certain Mississippi residents had standing to pursue state law
nuisance, negligence and trespass claims for injuries purportedly
suffered because the defendants' emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) allegedly increased the destructive force of Hurricane
Katrina.  The Fifth Circuit subsequently agreed to rehear the
case, but then dismissed the appeal in its entirety when several
judges recused themselves in the case.  The Fifth Circuit's order
dismissing the appeal and vacating the earlier panel's decision
had the effect of reinstating the district court's original
dismissal of the case.

In January 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs'
request that their appeal be reinstated in the Fifth Circuit.  In
May 2011, the plaintiffs in the Comer case filed a new lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi against the Company and numerous other defendants
(Comer II).  The Comer II complaint reasserts that the defendants'
emissions of GHGs have contributed to global warming and led to
severe weather consequences.  The plaintiffs assert claims for
public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence, and they
seek to have their case certified as a class action.  In July
2011, the Company was dismissed from the case.


EQUINIX INC: Appellant Asserts Standing in IPO-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellant continues to assert standing to object to the
approval of Equinix, Inc.'s settlement of a shareholder class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 30, 2001, and August 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and several
investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (the "Underwriter Defendants").  The cases were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Similar lawsuits were filed against
approximately 300 other issuers and related parties.  These
lawsuits have been coordinated before a single judge.  The
purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company
and the Individual Defendants.  The plaintiffs have since
dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice.  The
lawsuits allege that the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege
that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was
false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.  On February 19, 2003, the court
dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Equinix case, reached a settlement.  It
provides for releases of existing claims and claims that could
have been asserted relating to the conduct alleged to be wrongful
from the class of investors participating in the settlement.  The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
Equinix.  On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to
the settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal
was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district
court to determine if the appellant is a class member with
standing to appeal.  The district court ruled that the appellant
is not a class member with standing to appeal.  The appellant has
filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit a notice of appeal of the district court opinion that he
is not a class member.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.
The Company adds that it is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact
on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously if
the settlement does not survive the remaining appeal.

The Company believes that while an unfavorable outcome to this
litigation is reasonably possible, a range of potential loss
cannot be determined at this time.  The Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with this legal matter as of
September 30, 2011 as the Company concluded that an unfavorable
outcome is not probable.


EQUINIX INC: "Cement Masons" Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Cement Masons & Plasterers
Joint Pension Trust against Equinix, Inc., and its officers
remains pending, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers.  The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages,
fees and costs.  Defendants have not yet responded to the claims
in this action.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.
The Company adds that it is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact
on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company believes that while an unfavorable outcome to this
litigation is reasonably possible, a range of potential loss
cannot be determined at this time.  The Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with this legal matter as of
September 30, 2011, as the Company concluded that an unfavorable
outcome is not probable.


FIRST MIDWEST: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a class-
action lawsuit recently filed against First Midwest Bank accuses
the Itasca-based institution of unfairly manipulating the records
of checking-account customers to maximize the number of overdraft
fees it charges.

First Midwest, which earlier this year received the J.D. Power
award for highest customer satisfaction among Midwest retail
banks, disclosed the lawsuit in its third-quarter financial report
on Oct. 28 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit, filed in August in Cook County Circuit Court, is
seeking class-action status and has been filed on behalf of
certain First Midwest customers who incurred overdraft fees.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and restitution.

"The company believes that the complaint contains significant
inaccuracies and factual misstatements," the bank said in its SEC
filing.  "As a result, the bank intends to vigorously defend
itself against the allegations in the lawsuit."

The suit was filed on behalf of Indiana resident Lillian Barnes.
First Midwest has about 100 branches, including some in Northwest
Indiana.

Ms. Barnes has a First Midwest checking account, including a debit
card.  The lawsuit said First Midwest has the option to accept or
decline a transaction at the point of sale.

"First Midwest wrongfully charged Ms. Barnes multiple overdraft
fees on numerous occasions," the suit said.  For example, she was
charged three overdraft fees on Sept. 8, 2010, in the amount of
$35 each, for a total of $105.

The lawsuit claims that the debits were processed from the highest
to the lowest amounts; if the smaller debits were paid off first,
there would have been fewer overdrawn transactions.

Also, the debits were deducted before the credits were applied.

"If First Midwest had not manipulated and re-ordered Ms. Barnes'
transactions from highest to lowest, and if First Midwest had not
deducted the debit transactions prior to applying the deposit,
Ms. Barnes would not have incurred three overdraft fees," the suit
said.

If First Midwest had posted the transactions from lowest to
highest, Barnes would have incurred only one overdraft fee.  And
if the bank had credit the account first, she would have incurred
none.

"The overdraft charges assessed plaintiff are representative of
millions of dollars of overdraft fees that First Midwest
wrongfully assessed and deducted from customers' accounts," the
lawsuit said.  The practice is especially wrong "considering the
fact that the bank knew at the time of approval whether there were
sufficient funds in the account to cover the transaction."

The lawsuit said that First Midwest has failed to adequately
disclose to its customers that they could elect to opt out of
overdraft coverage.  That means that the transaction would be
denied, but then customers wouldn't face the fees.

The lawsuit, which alleges unjust enrichment, among other things,
was filed by Northbrook consumer lawyer William Sweetnam.  He's
also involved in a similar case against Old National Bank of
Evansville, Ind.

First Midwest recently announced a deal to buy some Old National
deposits.


GENTEK BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Defective Steel Siding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service report that Gentek Building
Products and its parent company Associated Materials sell
defective steel siding and fail to honor a lifetime warranty, an
unhappy customer says in a federal class action.

Named plaintiff Robert Patrick says the siding warps, cracks,
buckles, flakes, peels, splits, discolors and deteriorates.  In
some cases, he says, it breaks and falls off the building.
Patrick claims the defects allow moisture to penetrate the
building, leading to water damage.  Both defendant companies are
based in Ohio.

"In 2010, plaintiff Patrick noticed that his siding was
deteriorating in numerous locations," the complaint states.  "In
August 2010, plaintiff Patrick filed Warranty Claim 127263 with
Gentek.  Upon filing his warranty claim, Gentek instructed Patrick
to pay $100.00 to have repairs made pursuant to the sidings
purported 'Lifetime Warranty' (whereby a 'refinishing process'
would be conducted).  Plaintiff Patrick promptly did so. Since
September 2010, Plaintiff has had no repairs made to his house by
Gentek.  Plaintiff has been ignored by Gentek concerning his
warranty claim, even after sending $100.00 as requested and making
repeated correspondence and phone calls to the company for over
one year.  In August 2011, Gentek, for unknown reasons, reissued
plaintiff another warranty claim number - #00181744.  The problems
with plaintiffs siding have gotten worse since he filed his
ignored warranty claim in 2010."

The national class includes anyone who has bought Gentek siding
since 1986.  Mr. Patrick seeks actual and punitive damages for
breach of warranty and violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.  He also wants Gentek ordered to establish an
inspection program and protocol.

A copy of the Complaint in Patrick v. Gentek Building Products,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01891 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/GentekCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Steven L. Groves, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE
          300 N Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone; (314) 241-8111

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-8609

               - and -

          Gary Mason, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW
          Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290

               - and -

          Daniel Bryson, Esq.
          BRYSON LAW, PLLC
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603


HICKORY SPRINGS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal antitrust class
action claims Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co. and others
conspired to fix prices for "flexible, slabstock polyurethane
foam."

The Rose Hill Co. sued Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company,
Valle Foam Industries, Domfoam International, The Carpenter
Company, The Woodbridge Group, Flexible Foam Products, Scottdel,
Fxi-Foamex Innovations, Future Foam, Vitafoam Products Canada
Limited, Vitafoam, and Leggett & Platt.

Three other companies filed similar complaints in the same court.

A copy of the Complaint in The Rose Hill Company, Inc. v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00226 (N.D.
Miss.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/Antitrust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Lawrence Deas, Esq.
          DEAS & DEAS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7282
          Tupelo, MS 38802-7282
          Telephone: (662) 842-4546
          E-mail: lawrence@deaslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Don O. Gleason, Jr., Esq.
          GLEASON & MCHENRY, PLLC
          P.O. Box 7316
          Tupelo, MS 38802-7316
          Telephone: (662) 690-9824
          E-mail: don.gleason@gleason-mchenry.net

               - and -

          William Liston, III, Esq.
          LISTON/LANCASTER PLLC
          P.O. Box 14127
          Jackson, MS 39236
          Telephone: (601) 981-1636
          E-mail: wlist3@aol.com


HIRANI CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over NYPD's Precinct House Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Bridge Construction Corp., Biltwel General Contractor Corp. on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Hirani
Construction Management Inc., Jitendra Hirani, The City of New
York, Hon. John C. Liu, the Comptroller of the City of New York,
Raymond W. Kelly, the Commissioner of the New York City Police
Department, Case No. 653031/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 1, 2011)
seeks recovery and payment for work, labor, materials and services
performed, and lost profits, in connection with the public
improvement consisting of the excavation and construction of a new
parking lot at the New York Police Department's 47th Precinct
house by Biltwel and Bay Bridge.

The Plaintiffs allege that Biltwel was wrongfully terminated and
not paid by Hirani for labor and materials provided for the
Project, in breach of the subcontract between Biltwel and Hirani.

Bay Bridge is a New York Corporation with a principal place of
business in Bayside, New York.  Biltwel is a New York corporation
with a principal place of business in Shoreham, New York.

Hirani is a New York corporation with a principal place of
business in Jericho, New York.  Jitendra Hirani is an officer and
director of Hirani.  The Plaintiffs believe that Hirani holds a
contract, duly executed with the NYPD, for the work required for
the Project at the NYPD's 47th Precinct house, in Bronx, New York.
The Plaintiffs assert that the city of New York and the NYPD
failed to require Hirani to provide a payment bond for the
Project.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Ferrini, Esq.
          ALEXANDER FERRINI, III, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          200 Park Avenue South, Suite 915
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 766-4300
          E-mail: admin@ferrinilaw.com


KAISER HOSPITAL: Blumenthal Files Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Employment Lawyers Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class
action lawsuit against Kaiser Hospital on October 7, 2011,
alleging that the hospital failed to pay the salaried computer
employees overtime pay even though these employees work more than
40 hour workweeks.  Small v. Kaiser Hospitals, No. 00099011 is
currently pending in San Diego Superior Court.

In the opinion of the managing partner of the law firm, Norman
Blumenthal, "this could be the tip of the iceberg, as corporations
take advantage of pro-employer court decisions and feckless
government agencies to push the limits of the law in order to
avoid paying overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a week".
Blumenthal claims that if the Courts would simply enforce overtime
laws as Congress intended, these rulings would create thousands of
jobs in America overnight.  "If the wage and hour laws were
enforced by the Courts, as, I think intended, corporations would
hire more employees to get the job done rather than pay fewer
employees overtime wages," says Blumenthal.

Blumenthal believes that all Courts "should be guided by the
United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Davis
vs. Chase Bank, 587 F.3d 529 (2nd Cir. 2009) -- where the Second
Circuit ruled that Chase Bank misclassified loan underwriters as
'exempt' from overtime pay and thus unlawfully failed to pay them
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
Court in the Chase Bank class action lawsuit emphasized that the
purpose of the overtime laws are to encourage companies to "spread
employment to avoid the extra wage" and to "assure workers
additional pay to compensate them for the burden" of working
overtime hours."

The employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are
currently representing the following types of salaried employees
in class action lawsuits seeking to recover overtime pay: Verizon
First Level Local Managers (pending in the Central District of
California as Aburto v. Verizon, No. 11-CV-00088); CH Robinson
Account Managers (currently pending in the Southern District of
California as Grabowski v. CH Robinson, No. 10-CV-1658); Lockheed
Martin Security Personnel (currently pending in the Southern
District of California as Rix v. Lockheed Martin, No. 09-cv-2063);
Lockheed Martin Computer Technicians (currently pending in the
Southern District of California as Williams v. Lockheed Martin,
No. 09-CV-01669); Coventry Health Care Case Managers (currently
pending in the Central District of California as Rieve vs.
Coventry Health Care, No. 11-CV-01032); Lowe's Floor Zone Managers
(pending in the Northern District of California as Valle vs.
Lowe's, No. 11-CV-01489); Zurich Workers' Compensation Claims
Adjusters (pending in the Central District of California as
Bucklin v. American Zurich Insurance, No. 11-CV-05519); Renal
Advantage Dietitians (currently pending in the Southern District
of California as Rosenberg v. Renal Advantage, No. 11-CV-02152).
The employment lawyers are currently involved in a class action
lawsuit on behalf of AT&T At Home Call Center Employees (currently
pending in the Northern District of California as Perry v. AT&T,
No.11-CV-01488) which alleges that as a result of AT&T unlawfully
classifying at home call center workers as independent contractors
rather than employees, these call center workers are required to
pay AT&T's share of social security and medicare taxes along with
their home office expenses.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that focuses on salaried employee claims involving overtime
pay laws under the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act.  If you think you have been incorrectly classified as exempt
from overtime pay, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik for a
free confidential consultation by calling (866) 771-7099.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of K-V Pharmaceutical
Company, between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at 310-201-9150 or
Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail at shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

The Complaint charges K-V Pharmaceutical and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities
laws.  K-V Pharmaceutical is a specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the acquisition, development, manufacture and marketing
of branded and generic/non-branded prescription pharmaceutical
products in the United States, primarily focusing on women's
healthcare.  The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants issued false and/or misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial prospects.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented that the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had granted K-V Pharmaceutical the
exclusive distribution rights over "Makena," a drug used to
prevent miscarriages, and that the FDA would enforce those rights
by preventing K-V Pharmaceutical's competitors from distributing
generic formulations of the drug.  The Complaint further alleges
that defendants failed to disclosed that the drug's $1,500 price
actually would reduce the availability of Makena to low-income and
other at-risk groups.

On March 17, 2011, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown
issued a press release regarding a letter they had sent to the
Federal Trade Commission urging the agency to launch an
investigation into potentially anti-competitive behavior related
to the dramatic increased in Makena's price.  Following this news,
K-V Pharmaceutical's A-series stock dropped $1.14, from the
previous day's closing price of $9.64, to close at $8.50 per share
on March 17, 2011.

On April 1, 2011, the Company announced a 55% reduction in
Makena's list price.  Then, on April 4, 2011, Bloomberg published
an article disclosing that even with the recently announced price
reduction, prescribing physicians would not recommend Makena to
their patients.  Citing interviews with several physicians,
Bloomberg reported that the hostility generated by Makena's
initial price had created a barrier to using K-V Pharmaceutical's
Makena as there was already a cheaper alternative available that
the FDA stood behind.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from October 19, 2011, to serve as
lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          Toll Free: 888-773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


LITHIA MOTORS: "Neese" Class Suit Remains Pending in Alaska
-----------------------------------------------------------
In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Lithia Motors, Inc.
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI, and in April, 2007, a second case
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at
Anchorage.  In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company,
through its Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that
purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging
customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation
fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to
disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used
vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for
sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the Company receives a
fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve").  The
lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or
three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and
attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action
certification.  Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits,
the Company engaged in settlement discussions with the State of
Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the
first two practices enumerated.  As a result of those discussions,
the Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court
approval and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the
proposed settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to
intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to
the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class for (i) the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the Plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes and (iii) arguing that since the
State's lawsuit against the Company's dealerships did not address
the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers
who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company.  On June
14, 2011, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the
size of the class or classes.  The Company says it intends to
defend the claims vigorously and does not believe the novel
"dealer reserve" claim has merit.

The Company says the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot
be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of any
of the matters could have a material adverse effect on its results
of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


LITHIA MOTORS: Still Awaits Deal Approval in Text Messages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of its $2.5
million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit commenced
by Kevin McClintic over text messages, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In April 2011, a third party vendor assisted the Company in
promoting a targeted "0% financing on used vehicles" advertising
campaign during a limited sale period.  The marketing included
sending a "Short Message Service" communication to cell phones (a
"text message") of the Company's previous customers.  The message
was sent to over 50,000 cell phones in 14 states.  The message
indicated that the recipients could "Opt-Out" of receiving any
further messages by replying "STOP," but, due to a technical
error, some recipients who responded requesting to be unsubscribed
nonetheless may have received a follow-on message.

On April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief was filed against the Company (Kevin McClintic
vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of the State
of Washington for King County) alleging the text messaging
activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and consumer
protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each violation, trebled,
plus injunctive relief and attorney fees.  The lawsuit seeks class
action designation for all similarly situated entities and
individuals.  The lawsuit has been removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

On July 5, 2011, a complaint was filed alleging nearly identical
claims, also seeking class action designation (Dan McLaren vs.
Lithia Motors, Civil No. 11-810, United States District Court of
Oregon, Portland Division).  This case was stayed pending the
outcome of the McClintic matter by order of the court on
October 11, 2011.  The class representative in the McLaren case
also attempted to intervene in the McClintic case.  This
intervention motion was denied on October 19, 2011.

The Company participated in a mediation of the McClintic case and
has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which
is subject to court approval.  Under this settlement agreement,
the Company agreed to pay a total of $2.5 million, all of which
such amounts will be reimbursed by the vendor pursuant to
contractual indemnification.  The Company says no assurances can
be given that the court will approve the settlement.


MICHAEL V. LOMBARDI: H-2B Visa Workers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that thirty-
eight immigrant workers say they were "systematically defrauded
and exploited in the recruitment and hiring process," and
subjected to "exorbitant debt, forced labor, substandard living
conditions and substandard wage rates."  The federal class action
names a dozen corporate defendants, including Aramark, The Polo
Club of Boca Raton Property Owners Association, a golf club, and
the Foundation for Worldwide International Student Exchange.

The immigrants, mostly from the Philippines, but also from
Indonesia, Belarus, Turkey and Jamaica, say they were "holders of
H-2B visas, which allow U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals
to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs."

There are Recruiter Defendants and Employer Defendants.

The recruiter defendants are Michael V. Lombardi, of West Palm
Beach, who is registered agent for co-defendant U.S.
Opportunities; Royal Hospitality Services, of New Orleans; Ronald
W. Ball, of St. Pete Beach, Fla.; Aramark Corp.; The Polo Club of
Boca Raton Property Owners Association, of Plantation, Fla.;
Carlos Barracos, of Miami; the Foundation for Worldwide
International Student Exchange, of Dyersburg, Tenn.; Patriot Pro
Cleaning, of Orlando; Gasparilla Inn, of Boca Grande, Fla.; and
Ibis Golf and Country Club, of West Palm Beach.

The employer defendants are 5 Star Forestry, of Ridgeland, Miss.;
Southern Mississippi Pine Straw, of Mendenhall, Miss.; Beau Rivage
LLC, of Gulfport, Miss.; and Beau Rivage Resorts, of Biloxi.

The class claims the recruiter defendants "fraudulently
misrepresented to the Department of Labor that they needed more
H-2B workers than actually needed."

"Recruiter defendants then made employment offers to plaintiffs
and other class members for work in the United States at various
locations of recruiter defendants.

"However, recruiter defendants actually sent the plaintiffs and
other class members to perform work for the employer defendants
that had not been identified on their visas.

"Neither the recruiter defendants or employer defendants paid for
plaintiffs and other class members' visa fees as required by the
federal visa program.

"Instead recruiter defendants fraudulently misrepresented to
plaintiffs and other class members that they were responsible for
such fees.

"Plaintiffs and other class members were coerced into signing loan
agreements to pay for visa fees that ranged from $5,000 to
$8,000.00 per person."

The class claims the recruiters then sent them to "lender
companies that required them to sign twelve (12) postdated checks
representing their twelve (12) monthly authorization payments and
also required them to issue twelve (12) blank checks to be used to
pay off the loan.  Plaintiffs and class members were also required
to have family members sign as co-signers on the loans so that the
loan companies in the foreign countries would have someone to hold
responsible in their country in case the loan was not paid."

Upon arriving in the United States, the workers say, they were
then given different jobs than promised, and "were placed in
filthy, unsecured, and totally bare trailer trucks that had no
potable water, food, proper beds, or even mattresses."

They seek compensatory and punitive damages for violations of
labor laws and of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act.

Specific violations alleged include "a. Illegally forcing U.S.
Opportunities Class to pay for fees in the visa process that are
the sole obligation of the employer petitioner;

"b. Fraudulently misleading U.S. Opportunities Class members to
believe they are contracting for employment with one employer in
the United States, and then sending them to another employer that
was not listed on their visas; and

"c. Transferring U.S. Opportunities Class members to employers
that paid them substandard wages and placed them in substandard
living conditions."

A copy of the Complaint in Antigo, et al. v. Michael V. Lombardi,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00408 (S.D. Miss.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/Alabama.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Davidson, Esq.
          DAVIDSON BOWIE, PLLC
          Post Office Box 321405
          Jackson, MS 39232-1405
          Telephone: (601) 932-0028
          E-mail: jdavidson@dbslawfirm.net

               - and -

          Nick Norris, Esq.
          Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq.
          LOUIS H. WATSON, JR., P.A.
          628 N. State Street
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: (601) 968-0000
          E-mail: nick@louiswatson.com


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Dallas Amends Filing Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Dallas County, Texas, amended its
lawsuit against Bank of America Corp. and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems Inc. over unpaid filing fees, seeking to
represent all counties in the state.

Dallas filed the complaint in September, alleging that Merscorp
Inc.'s MERS, which runs an electronic registry of mortgages,
cheated the county out of uncollected filing fees.  MERS tracks
servicing rights and ownership interests in mortgage loans on its
registry, allowing banks to buy and sell loans without recording
transfers with counties.

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins revised the lawsuit
on Oct. 31 as a class action, or group case, seeking to represent
all other Texas counties in which a deed of trust has been filed
identifying MERS as a beneficiary.  Dallas claims MERS was
established by banks including Bank of America to avoid paying
filing fees, as well as to ease transfers of mortgages.

"The MERS system has created massive confusion as to the true
owners of the beneficial interests in mortgage loans and mortgages
throughout the United States, and the loss of revenues has harmed
U.S. counties," Dallas County lawyers said in court papers.

The Dallas complaint has no merit, said Janis Smith, a spokeswoman
for Reston, Virginia-based Merscorp.

"The allegations were false for Dallas County and they're false
statewide," Ms. Smith said in an e-mail.  "The MERS system does
not violate Texas law."

All deeds of trust in Texas "registered on the MERS system are
recorded in public land records to establish the lien interest,
and the recording fees are paid," she said.  "The MERS system is
not a legal system of record nor a replacement for public land
records.  No interests are transferred on the system -- they are
only tracked."

MERS practices follow Texas Property Code, Ms. Smith said.

MERS has been sued by counties in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and
Oklahoma, which also claim the MERS system cheated them out of
filing fees.

Delaware's attorney general last week filed an unrelated suit,
alleging MERS used deceptive practices that hide information from
borrowers.

The clerks of Kentucky's Christian and Washington counties sued
MERS, JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Chase Home Mortgage Corp., Citigroup
Inc.'s CitiMortgage, Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America and others
in federal court in Louisville in April over unpaid mortgage
filing fees, seeking to represent all 120 counties in Kentucky.
They said the banks used MERS to avoid paying the fees.

Geauga County, Ohio, filed a similar suit Oct. 13 against MERS and
banks on behalf of all counties in that state.  Cleveland County,
Oklahoma, filed a MERS class action Oct. 25.  Branch County,
Michigan, sued MERS, Chase and others in state court in August,
alleging they improperly failed to pay real estate transfer taxes.

Officials of Bexar County, Texas, which includes San Antonio,
approved hiring an outside law firm to file a suit to recover
unpaid recording fees, said Edward Schweninger, assistant county
attorney for Bexar County.  Harris County, Texas, which includes
Houston, is also considering filing a claim, according to
officials.

The Dallas class action lawsuit would cover every county where
MERS is identified as beneficiary or where "any record has been
filed" that would cause MERS to be identified in deed files as a
grantor of interest in a property, unless "MERS itself actually
holds in the property the interest that MERS purports to be
granting," according to the amended complaint.

Cases against MERS include Dallas County v. Merscorp Inc., 11-cv-
02733, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas);
and Christian County Clerk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems Inc., 5:11-cv-00072, U.S. District Court, Western District
of Kentucky (Louisville).


NISOURCE INC: Has Funded All Claims in "Tawney" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. has funded all claims tendered by the claims
administrator in connection with its agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit against its subsidiary, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Plaintiffs in Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc., Roane County, WV Circuit Court, who are West Virginia
landowners, filed a lawsuit in early 2003 in the West Virginia
Circuit Court for Roane County, West Virginia (the "Trial Court"),
against Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. ("CNR") alleging that CNR
underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly
deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for
the gas.  Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendants fraudulently
concealed the deduction of post-production charges.  In December
2004, the Trial Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource
and Columbia Energy Group ("Columbia") as Defendants.  The Trial
Court later certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties from
CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the
boundary of the state of West Virginia.  Although NiSource sold
CNR in 2003, NiSource remained obligated to manage this litigation
and was responsible for the majority of any damages awarded to
Plaintiffs.  On January 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case
returned a verdict against all Defendants in the amount of $404.3
million inclusive of both compensatory and punitive damages;
Defendants subsequently filed their Petition for Appeal, which was
later amended, with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
(the "Appeals Court"), which refused the petition on May 22, 2008.

On August 22, 2008, Defendants filed Petitions to the United
States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.  Given the Appeals
Court's earlier refusal of the appeal, NiSource adjusted its
reserve in the second quarter of 2008 to reflect the portion of
the Trial Court judgment for which NiSource would be responsible,
inclusive of interest.  This amount was included in "Legal and
environmental reserves," on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
December 31, 2008.  On October 24, 2008, the Trial Court
preliminarily approved a Settlement Agreement with a total
settlement amount of $380 million.  The settlement received final
approval by the Trial Court on November 22, 2008.  NiSource's
share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8 million.

On June 21, 2011, the Court issued the Second Supplemental Order
to conclude administration of settlement.  The Order sets forth
the specific steps to be taken by the Parties to close
administration of the settlement and terminate the settlement
fund.  As of September 30, 2011, NiSource funded all claims
tendered by the Claims Administrator.  NiSource does not expect to
make additional material payments in this matter.


NORTHERN STATES: Defending 2nd Katrina-Related Suit in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Company and its subsidiaries continue to
defend a class action lawsuit alleging that their CO2 emissions
intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint
alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of
Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly
sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on
public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the
defendants named in the complaint are the Company, its parent, and
Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries Public Service Company of
Colorado, Southwestern Public Service Company, and Northern States
Power Company (NSP-Wisconsin).  The amount of damages claimed by
plaintiffs is unknown.  The Company believes that this lawsuit is
without merit.  No accrual has been recorded for this matter.


PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Autism Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
dismiss a proposed class action accusing the Philadelphia School
District of excessively transferring autistic students to new
schools when they complete certain grades, while "non-disabled
children enjoy continued and uninterrupted attendance in K-5
schools or K-8 schools."

A copy of the Memorandum in P.V., et al. v. The School District of
Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04027 (E.D. Pa.), is
available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/AutismSchoolsOpinion.pdf


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Louisiana will conduct a fairness hearing on
December 8, 2011, in connection with Republic Services, Inc.'s
settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit involving its facility
in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2009, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court,
Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, issued its Post Class
Certification Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a lawsuit
alleging nuisance from the activities of the CECOS hazardous waste
facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana.  The court
granted class certification for all those living within a six mile
radius of the CECOS site between the years 1977 and 1990.  The
Company appealed the class certification order.

On August 17, 2011, the court of appeals granted a joint motion to
remand the case to the trial court for the parties to finalize a
proposed settlement.  The parties executed a proposed settlement
agreement on September 15, 2011.  The Court preliminarily approved
the agreement on September 26, 2011, and will conduct a fairness
hearing on December 8, 2011.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Unit Continues to Defend Fuel Recovery Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 20, 2009, Klingler's European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc.,
filed a complaint against Republic Services, Inc.'s subsidiary,
BFI Waste Services, LLC, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, in which plaintiff complains about fuel recovery fees and
administrative fees charged.  The complaint purports to be filed
on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in Alabama.
This complaint asserts various legal and equitable theories of
recovery and alleges in essence that the fees were not properly
disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract.  Class-
certification-related discovery is underway.  Plaintiff's deadline
for moving for class certification is November 10, 2011.
Plaintiff has not specified the amount of damages sought.

Although the range of reasonably possible loss cannot be
estimated, Republic Services, Inc. does not believe that this
matter will have a material impact on the Company's consolidated
financial positions, results of operations or cash flows.  The
Company will continue to vigorously defend the claims in this
lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say RightNow
Technologies is selling itself too cheaply to Oracle, for $1.4
billion, or $43 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Coyne v. RightNow Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 6996 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377


SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suits in West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. continues to defend lawsuits related to its closed
West Virginia facility, according to the Company's October 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, against the
Company's subsidiaries, Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto Company and
Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a named defendant) alleging exposure to
dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility, which is now
closed.  The relevant production activities at the facility
occurred during Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the
facility and well prior to the creation of the Flexsys joint
venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was subsequently
transferred to the Company in the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value,
medical monitoring and other equitable relief.  In May 2011, the
West Virginia circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of
Flexsys in the class action litigation, and dismissed Flexsys with
prejudice from the case.  Specifically, the court held that
plaintiffs had presented no evidence of contamination or
distribution of dioxin by Flexsys during its ownership of the
Nitro facility.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo
Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in
approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was
named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court
jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County,
West Virginia.  The largely identical complaints allege that the
residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin
particles from the Nitro facility.  Plaintiffs did not specify the
amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.  In 2009,
over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by
individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named
Solutia and Flexsys as defendants, and one additional complaint
was filed in January 2011.

The Company says the claims in this matter concern alleged conduct
occurring while Flexsys was a joint venture between the Company
and Akzo Nobel, and any potential damages in these cases would be
evenly apportioned between the Company and Akzo Nobel to the
extent such claims are determined not to be Legacy Tort Claims.


SOLUTIA INC: Suits Related to W.G. Krummrich Site Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia
Inc., Pharmacia, Monsanto Company and two other unrelated
defendants alleging the contamination of the plaintiff's property
from PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances
emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois
(including the Company's W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).
The proposed class action is comprised of residents who live
within a two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.  The plaintiffs
are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the costs
associated with remediation and removal of contaminants from their
property.  This action is one of several lawsuits (primarily filed
by the same plaintiffs' counsel) over the past year regarding
alleged historical contamination from the W.G. Krummrich site.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009
against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who
claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property
damages as a result of the same PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget.  In June 2010, a group of approximately
1,200 plaintiffs also filed wrongful death claims in a lawsuit in
St. Clair County arising out of alleged contamination from the
defendants' facilities.  Moreover, four additional individual
lawsuits comprised of claims from twelve plaintiffs were filed
between January and April 2010 in Madison County, Illinois,
alleging that plaintiffs suffered illnesses resulting from
exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous
substances.  Lastly, in June 2010, a second purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri
against the same defendants alleging the contamination of the
plaintiffs' property from PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in
Sauget, Illinois, and from the Company's now-closed Queeny plant
in St. Louis.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical
monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal
of alleged contaminants from their property.  The proposed class
members include residents exclusively within the state of
Missouri.

Upon assessment of the terms of the settlement agreement entered
into by the Company and Monsanto in connection with its emergence
from Chapter 11 and other defenses available to the Company, the
Company believes the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company on the Putnam County, West Virginia; Escambia County,
Florida; and St. Clair County, Illinois, and related litigation
against the Company is remote and, accordingly, the Company has
not recorded a loss contingency.  Nonetheless, if it were
subsequently determined these matters are not within the meaning
of Legacy Tort Claims, as defined in the Monsanto Settlement
Agreement, or other defenses to the Company were unsuccessful, it
is reasonably possible the Company would be liable for an amount
which cannot be estimated but which could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Second "Hurricane Katrina" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A second lawsuit filed by plaintiffs in the dismissed purported
class action captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al, alleging
that the CO2 emissions of more than 85 utility companies
contributed to the strength of Hurricane Katrina is still pending,
according to Southwestern Public Service Company's October 31,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the Comer Action filed a second lawsuit
against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in
U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint alleges
defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane
Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained
to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on public and
private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the defendants
named in the complaint are the Company, its parent company Xcel
Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries Public Service Company of
Colorado, Northern States Power Company -- Wisconsin and Northern
States Power Company - Minnesota.  The amount of damages claimed
by plaintiffs is unknown.  It is believed that this lawsuit is
without merit.  No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Southwestern Public Service Company, a New Mexico corporation, is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc.


TRAVELZOO INC: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Travelzoo Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits in New York
alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 9, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Tomlinson v. Travelzoo Inc., et al., was commenced against the
Company and certain former and current officers and directors.
Another putative class action lawsuit, Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Fund v. Travelzoo Inc., et al., was also filed in that
court and asserted substantially similar claims against the same
defendants.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the two putative class action lawsuits will
be consolidated and a lead plaintiff will be selected.

These actions assert claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") alleging that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and prospects during the class period from
April 21, 2011, to July 21, 2011.  The actions seek unspecified
damages and the Company says it is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of losses that could potentially result from these
actions.  The Company believes that the actions are without merit
and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


WADDELL & REED: Unit Remains a Defendant in FLSA-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed, Inc., remains as a defendant in the class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.'s October 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In the action captioned Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young,
individuals, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc. and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive; Case No. 09-CV-2909 AJB (WVG) pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, was filed December 28, 2009, the Company, along with
various of its affiliates, were sued in an individual action,
class action and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") nationwide
collective action by two former advisors asserting
misclassification of financial advisors as independent contractors
instead of employees.  Only Waddell & Reed, Inc. remains as a
defendant in the case.  Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA
for minimum and overtime wages, claims under California Labor Code
Statutes, and a claim for Unfair Business Practices under the
California Business & Professions Code.  Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages.
Plaintiffs have moved to conditionally certify the purported FLSA
collective action, asking the court to allow certain financial
advisors the opportunity to opt in to the lawsuit.  The Company
has opposed this request.  If the court conditionally certifies
the FLSA collective action, certain current and former financial
advisors will be provided written notice of the lawsuit and
offered the opportunity to participate as plaintiffs.  If
conditional certification is granted, the scope and cost of the
case would increase, particularly where there is a high
participation rate by those notified.  The Company says it intends
to continue vigorously contesting plaintiffs' claims.

In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution and outcome
of this matter is uncertain.  At this stage of the litigation, the
Company is unable to estimate the expense or exposure, if any,
that it may represent.  The ultimate resolution of this matter, or
an adverse determination against the Company, could have a
material adverse impact on the financial position and results of
operations of the Company.  However, this possible impact is
unknown and not reasonably determinable; therefore, no liability
has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements.


WEST BANCORPORATION: Class Suit vs. West Bank Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit over non-sufficient funds fees
charged by West Bank remains pending, according to West
Bancorporation, Inc.'s October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class
action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees
charged by West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on
bank card transactions are impermissible finance charges under the
Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and that
the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for payment
violated its duties of good faith under the Iowa Uniform
Commercial Code and Consumer Credit Code.  West Bank believes the
allegations in the lawsuit are factually and legally inaccurate.
West Bank is vigorously defending this litigation.

The Company believes that the likelihood of a loss as a result of
this lawsuit is "reasonably possible" for disclosure purposes
(i.e., greater than "remote" but less than "probable").  The
amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated
now because there are substantial and different defenses
concerning the various claims of potential liability and class
certification.  Even if legal liability is established under some
theory, which West Bank believes would be improper under existing
Iowa law, the amount of each plaintiff's damage claim would likely
require individual determination due to the potential
applicability of different offsets or credits.


* Dworken & Bernstein Continues to Fight for Cy Pres Doctrine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Patrick Perotti of the Northeast Ohio law firm Dworken &
Bernstein Co., L.P.A. continues to fight for the Cy Pres doctrine
allowing unclaimed class action funds to be distributed to local
charities.  Another $250,000 is being distributed this month from
one of his settlements with more on the horizon.  Perotti's Ohio
Lawyers Give Back initiative benefits thousands of people in the
community.  This month, The Julie Billiart School in Lyndhurst,
Ohio; Lakeland Community College in Mentor, Ohio; Boy Scouts of
America Greater Cleveland Council; The Northern Ohio Hemophilia
Foundation and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation -
Northeast Ohio Chapter will each receive a check for $50,000.

Dworken & Bernstein Co., LPA, announced that it again included a
"Cy Pres" clause in the settlement of three major class actions
involving consumer claims.  Cy pres means that money which a
defendant commits for the settlement of a class action is not
returned to the defendant if class members cannot be found, and
instead is directed to charities and non-profits.

In a settlement, both sides reach an amount of compensation which
they agree is fair.  "A settlement is an agreement which has terms
that are presented to the court," explained Patrick J. Perotti,
managing partner of the Class Action and Employment Group of
Dworken & Bernstein.  "The parties gain the court's approval based
on the agreed terms.  Truth in settlement means you actually pay
the agreed amount, rather than having it slide quietly back to the
defendant a year later.  Demanding a cy pres provision in the
settlement agreement makes the full payment happen, and makes the
process transparent and honest."  Mr. Perotti typically will not
settle a case without a cy pres provision.  "Not all cases have
leftover funds, but when they do, Dworken & Bernstein wants them
distributed 'as nearly as possible' to the intended benefit."

Charities and non-profits in Ohio have greatly benefited from
Mr. Perotti's creativity and hard work.  To date he has directed
over $22.5 million to organizations which help others.  By the end
of 2011, that total will exceed $23 million.  To see a full list
of charities and non-profits that have benefited from this
doctrine, go to http://www.ohiolawyersgiveback.organd click on
charities.

Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. is the largest law firm in Lake,
Geauga and Ashtabula Counties, Ohio with additional offices in
downtown Cleveland.  Serving the community for over 50 years,
Dworken & Bernstein and its 28 lawyers and staff of 65 offers a
full range of legal services for businesses, individuals, and
families.

Further information about Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. can be
found at http://www.dworkenlaw.comor Ohio Lawyers Give Back at
http://www.ohiolawyersgiveback.org

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Kaiser Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California,
reversed the grant of summary adjudication and entry of judgment
for Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation and against ICSOP.

The case is styled Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, Cross-
complainant and Respondent v. Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania, Cross-defendant and Appellant; Truck Insurance
Exchange, Plaintiff and Respondent.

Judges Willhite and Manella entered judgment in Case No. B222310
on June 3, 2011.

After making indemnity payments to asbestos manufacturer under
commercial general liability (CGL) policies, primary insurer filed
action against manufacturer, seeking declaratory judgment that
insurer's policies were exhausted and that insurer had no further
duty to defend or indemnify manufacturer in asbestos-related
litigation.

Manufacturer filed cross-complaint against its excess insurers,
seeking declaration of coverage under its excess policies.
Primary insurer moved for summary adjudication, and the Superior
Court, Los Angeles County granted the motion.

Excess insurer petitioned for writ of mandate.  The Court of
Appeal granted petition.  The Superior Court found that
manufacturer's excess coverage would "drop down" upon exhaustion
of the per-occurrence limit of a single primary policy, and
granted summary adjudication against excess insurer on declaratory
relief and breach of contract causes of action.  Excess insurer
appealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Rodarmel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, reversed the
ruling of the Circuit Court of McLean County, in an asbestos case
styled Juanita Rodarmel and Baxter Rodarmel, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. Pneumo Abex, L.L.C., Sued as Its Predecessor Pneumo Abex
Corporation; and Honeywell International, Inc., Defendants-
Appellants.

Judges Appleton, McCullough, and Turner entered judgment in Case
No. No. 4-10-0463 on July 15, 2011.

This tort action has two plaintiffs: Juanita Rodarmel and her
spouse, Baxter Rodarmel.  Mrs. Rodarmel suffers from mesothelioma,
for which she sought compensation, and Mr. Rodarmel sought
compensation for injury to the spousal relationship and for the
medical expenses of treating Mrs. Rodarmel's mesothelioma.

It is undisputed that Mrs. Rodarmel contracted the mesothelioma
from breathing asbestos fibers that her first husband, Leslie
Corry, carried home on his person and clothing from 1953 through
1956.  During that period, Mr. Corry was employed at Union Rubber
& Asbestos Company (UNARCO) in Bloomington, Ill., which used
asbestos in its manufacturing processes.  Former UNARCO employees
testified that they never received any warning from UNARCO about
the toxicity of asbestos and that UNARCO did little or nothing to
protect them from the asbestos.

UNARCO, however, is not one of the defendants in this case.
Instead, this appeal has two defendants, neither of which ever
employed Mr. Corry and neither of which supplied any of the
asbestos that made Mrs. Rodarmel sick: Honeywell International,
Inc., which is the successor, by merger, of The Bendix
Corporation; and Pneumo Abex, L.L.C., the successor of Pneumo Abex
Corporation, which in turn is a successor of American Brake Shoe
Company.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, Honeywell and Abex, on a theory of
civil conspiracy.  According to the complaint, defendants
conspired with UNARCO, Johns-Manville Corporation, Owens Corning,
and other companies.

The jury awarded plaintiffs US$2 million in compensatory damages
against defendants as well as US$400,000 in punitive damages
against Honeywell and US$100,000 in punitive damages against Abex.
Defendants appealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court Upholds $120,883 Award in AMS Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo, Panel A, affirmed the
ruling of the 22nd District Court of Deaf Smith County, which
awarded damages to Asbestos Maintenance Services, Inc. (AMS) in an
amount of US$120,883.95.

The case is styled Concept General Contracting, Inc. (d/b/a
Concept Builders), BW Affordable Housing, L.P., and Capitol
Indemnity Corp., Appellants v. Asbestos Maintenance Services,
Inc., Appellee.

Judges Campbell, Mackey K. Hancock and Pirtle entered judgment in
Case No. 07-10-00332-CV on July 18, 2011.

On May 27, 2004, BW Affordable Housing, L.P. (BW), contracted with
Concept General Contracting, Inc. to renovate certain apartment
units owned by BW in Hereford, Tex.  Concept, as general
contractor for the project, executed and filed a payment bond
issued by Capitol.

As part of this project, Concept and AMS entered into a
subcontract for AMS to provide asbestos abatement for restricted
areas within 125 apartment units.  This contract specifically
limited the areas to be abated in a manner that would allow AMS to
utilize an abatement method that is less intrusive and less costly
than a full abatement.

Soon after AMS began work on the project, Concept requested some
additional remediation.  AMS gave Concept a quote for this
additional work, performed this additional work, and Concept paid
AMS for this additional work.

While AMS was performing the work identified in these two
contracts, Jack Scheuerer, construction superintendent for
Concept, requested AMS perform additional abatement in certain
units.  Concept began performing this additional work, but the
additions were so numerous that they dramatically enlarged the
scope of the project, and altered the means by which the abatement
could be performed.

This extra work was billed to Concept as it was performed by AMS.
For the first four invoices, Concept paid for the extra work
without objection.  However, somewhere around the fifth invoice,
Concept stopped paying for the extra work that AMS had performed.
For about 11 invoices, AMS continued to do the extra work that was
marked at the job site by Mr. Scheuerer, but AMS eventually ceased
doing this work when it determined that Concept was not going to
pay for this extra work.

However, AMS continued to perform the work delineated in the two
contracts for some time.  At some point in the project, AMS ceased
working and left the work site but stood ready to complete the
contract work if and when recalled to the site by Concept.
However, Concept did not call AMS back to the work site.  Rather,
Concept contracted with another asbestos abatement company to
complete the work under the contracts as well as additional work
that needed to be done.

AMS brought suit against Concept and Capitol (collectively
"appellants").  After a two-day trial, the trial court took the
case under advisement.  Nearly three years later, the trial court
entered its judgment awarding AMS US$120,883.95 in damages, post-
judgment interest, and US$25,000 in attorney's fees.

Concept and Capitol then filed a motion for new trial, which was
denied after hearing.  Concept and Capitol also filed a request
for findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The trial court
entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Obriecht OK'd to Proceed With Retaliation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, allowed
Andrew M. Obriecht to proceed with his retaliation claim and with
the underlying conspiracy and due process claims.

District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered judgment in Case No. 10-
CV-221 on July 13, 2011.

Mr. Obriecht was incarcerated at Kettle Moraine Correctional
Institution at all times relevant.  He alleged that various prison
officials retaliated against him for filing grievances concerning
prison conditions.  These grievances centered on Mr. Obriecht's
involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and asbestos and on an
allegation that prison officials limited his contact with
attorneys.

Mr. Obriecht was subsequently given a hearing on the matter.  The
hearing officer, defendant Galligan, sentenced Mr. Obriecht to 180
days in segregation and recommended transfer to a maximum security
facility.  Mr. Obriecht also alleged that he was not allowed to
call witnesses whose testimony could have proved his innocence.

Mr. Obriecht asked for relief in the form of compensatory and
punitive damages.  In sum, he may proceed with his retaliation
claim and with the underlying conspiracy and due process claims.
However, several defendants shall be dismissed from the action.

It was hereby ordered that defendants Kelly Salinas, Lt. Stahler,
Donald White, Timothy Lundquist, Co. II Kalmus, Co. II Johnson,
Linda Crofts, Welcome Rose, Sgt. Jauger, Co. II Andrews, Co. II
Meyer, Sgt. Mihms, Sgt. Guell, Sgt. Gill, Sgt. Borowski, Sgt.
Westphal, Sgt. Dhein, Steve Austin, Lt. Olson, John Ray, P. Konen,
Sgt. Stagemen, James Doyle, and JB Van Hollen, were dismissed from
the action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Denies Harried Couple's Remand Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson
Division, denied Willie R. Harried and Joyce M. Harried's motion
to remand in a case styled Willie R. Harried and Wife, Joyce M.
Harried, Plaintiffs v. Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy Ronald
King, et al., Respondents.

District Judge Tom S. Lee entered judgment in Civil Action No.
3:11CV102TSL-MTP on July 12, 2011.

In 2001, Mr. Harried became a plaintiff with about 175 other
plaintiffs, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County against Illinois Central (Elbert Eakens v. Illinois Central
Railroad Co., Civil Action No.2001-65) in which the plaintiffs,
including Mr. Harried, asserted claims under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act, based on allegations they suffered from
asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by Illinois Central.

In August 2002, a settlement agreement was reached between the
parties in the Eaton case, under which Illinois Central agreed to
a payment schedule tied to each respective plaintiff's county of
residence and specific medical diagnosis.

As part of the agreement, each plaintiff was required to complete
a Pulmonary Questionnaire which requested information about the
respective plaintiff's diagnosis and exposure.  Mr. Harried
completed a questionnaire and on July 28, 2003, his attorneys,
William Guy and Thomas Brock, forwarded his completed
questionnaire to Illinois Central.

On Nov. 26, 2003, after receiving the questionnaire, Illinois
Central tendered to Mr. Harried and his attorneys a check in the
amount of US$90,000 in settlement of his claim.

Subsequently, in November 2006, Illinois Central filed suit in
this court against Mr. Harried, charging him with fraud in
connection with the settlement.

Illinois Central alleged that following the settlement, it had
discovered that certain of Mr. Harried's responses on the
Pulmonary Questionnaire were materially false.

In December 2007, after Mr. Harried was deposed and testified that
he had disclosed his participation in the Cosey case to Guy and
Brock on an intake form, and after copies of the intake form
produced in discovery by Guy and Brock did not match the
description of the form Mr. Harried testified he had completed,
Illinois Central filed an amended complaint to add Guy and Brock
as defendants on claims for fraud and breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing.

The case was ultimately tried, and on March 11, 2010, the jury
returned a verdict against Brock and Guy but in favor of Mr.
Harried on Illinois Central's fraud claim against him.

On Jan. 19, 2011, the Harrieds filed the present action in the
Circuit Court of Hinds County against Illinois Central, and
against Daniel Mulholland and the Forman Perry law firm, which had
represented Illinois Central in its lawsuit against Mr. Harried,
alleging claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution,
conspiracy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and punitive damages.

These claims were based on allegations that Illinois Central,
through its counsel, filed and pursued the lawsuit against Mr.
Harried knowing that the claim against him was time-barred and yet
proceeding anyway, with an ulterior motive of gathering
information in order to initiate and pursue litigation against the
attorneys Brock and Guy.

Defendants timely removed the case to this court, asserting
improper joinder of Mulholland and Forman Perry, whose Mississippi
citizenship is the same as plaintiffs.  Following removal,
Mulholland and Forman Perry promptly filed their motion to
dismiss.  The Harrieds thereafter filed their motion to remand.

It was ordered that plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied; and
it was further ordered that the motion of defendants Mulholland
and Forman Perry to dismiss was granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Lawsuits v. APV
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, upheld the ruling
of the King County Superior Court, which granted summary judgment
dismissal of Wietold Siemienec's claims against APV North America,
Inc.

The Appeals Court also reversed the trial court's decision to deny
APV's motion for summary judgment dismissal of Sandra Yankee's
claim that APV had a duty to warn.

Judges Schindler, Cox, and Grosse entered judgment in Case Nos.
Nos. 64312-6-I, 65019-0-I on July 18, 2011.

Sandra Yankee, individually and as the personal representative of
the Estate of Dennis Yankee, and Renata Needles, individually and
as the personal representative of the Estate of her father Witold
Siemieniec, both filed lawsuits against a number of manufacturers,
including APV, alleging products liability and negligence claims
from exposure to asbestos while working at the Alcoa aluminum mill
in Washington.

In 1940 and 1941, the predecessor-in-interest to APV, Baker
Perkins, Inc., sold five "size 22" DRM carbon mixers to the
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) aluminum mill in Vancouver,
Wash.  Under the asset purchase and sale agreements, APV is
responsible for the carbon mixers Baker Perkins delivered to
Alcoa.

Mr. Siemieniec worked as a welder and mechanic at the Alcoa plant
from 1966 until 1986.  As a welder, he worked on repairing,
tearing down, and rebuilding the carbon mixers.

Mr. Yankee began working as a laborer at the Alcoa plant in 1969.
In 1973 he became a millwright and worked at the Alcoa mill until
1997. As a millwright, he worked on the carbon mixers.

By the time Mr. Siemieniec and Mr. Yankee started working at
Alcoa, the mixers were 30 years old and had been torn down and
rebuilt numerous times.  There is no dispute that during the time
Mr. Siemieniec and Mr. Yankee worked at the mill, Alcoa used
insulation, gaskets, packing, and other replacement parts for the
carbon mixers that were manufactured by Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC.

Mr. Siemieniec was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2006 and
died in March 2007.  Mr. Yankee was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
February 2006 and died in June 2008.  The Estate of Siemieniec and
the Estate of Yankee filed lawsuits against manufacturers,
including APV and Garlock, alleging product liability and
negligence claims from asbestos exposure while working on the
carbon mixers at the Alcoa mill.

APV filed a motion for summary judgment in both cases arguing that
because there was no evidence that either Mr. Siemieniec or Mr.
Yankee were exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured
or sold by APV, as a matter of law, APV was not liable for
asbestos exposure from the use of another manufacturer's materials
or replacement parts.

The trial court granted APV's motion for summary judgment in Mr.
Siemieniec's lawsuit and dismissed his claims against APV.  The
court rejected Mr. Siemieniec's argument that the documents
required Alcoa to use asbestos-containing materials or replacement
parts.

John Michael Mattingly, Esq., Allen E. Eraut, Esq., of Rizzo
Mattingly Bosworth PC, Claude F. Bosworth, Esq., Attorney at Law,
in Portland, Ore., represented Petitioners.

Thomas J. Owens, Esq., of Seattle, Wash., Allen E. Eraut, Esq., of
Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC, Claude F. Bosworth, Esq., of
Portland, Ore., represented Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Granted in Clineff
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted BP
Amoco Chemical Co., BP Corporation North America Inc., and
Kvaerner U.S. Inc.'s Motions for Summary Judgment in an asbestos
case filed on behalf of Ronald Clineff.

Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No. 08C-
10-191 ASB on July 8, 2011.

Plaintiffs Karen Keeley, Edward Clineff, and Ronald Clineff, Jr.
are the surviving children of Mr. Clineff, who died on Sept. 5,
1997.  He was employed as a laboratory technician at the
Avisun/Amoco plant in New Castle, Del., from 1959 until early
1970.

Mr. Clineff led a troubled life in his later years, and during a
period of incarceration several months before his death, he began
experiencing symptoms that he attributed to a chest cold.  He
passed away two weeks after being released from prison, and his
death was investigated by the Medical Examiner's Office.

Two days after Mr. Clineff died, the coroner's office told Mr.
Clineff's daughter Karen Keeley that he had died of cancer.  At
that time, the coroner's office did not identify the type of
cancer, and Mr. Clineff's children presumed that the cancer had
been related to genetics or his history of cigarette-smoking.

In December 1997, a death certificate was issued.  Because the
family needed the certificate for Social Security purposes, Mrs.
Keeley obtained it.  The certificate listed the cause of Mr.
Clineff's death as "metastatic malignant mesothelioma."
Plaintiffs read the death certificate, including the diagnosis of
mesothelioma.

In late December 2006, Ronald Clineff, Jr. attended a Christmas
party at which an acquaintance who worked with his father at the
Avisun facility mentioned that many former Avisun workers had
developed symptoms related to asbestos exposure.  Soon thereafter,
Edward Clineff obtained the death certificate from Mrs. Keeley and
showed it to an attorney, who informed him that mesothelioma was
an asbestos-related disease.

Plaintiffs retained counsel and filed this suit on Oct. 16, 2008,
more than 11 years after Mr. Clineff's death, alleging that
various defendants were responsible for exposing Mr. Clineff to
asbestos and causing his mesothelioma.  Plaintiffs asserted claims
of negligence, strict liability, and willful and wanton conduct.

Defendants BP Amoco Chemical Company, BP Corporation North America
Inc., and Kvaerner U.S. Inc. had moved for summary judgment,
arguing that Plaintiffs' claims wer barred by a two-year statute
of limitations.

The moving defendants argued that limitations period began to run,
at the latest, in December 1997, when the plaintiffs reviewed Mr.
Clineff's death certificate and learned that he had died of
mesothelioma.  In response, Plaintiffs argued that Mr. Clineff was
never aware that he was suffering from an asbestos-related
disease, and that they were "not put on notice of such a
possibility until December 2006."

Because Plaintiffs were on constructive notice of their claims in
late 1997, the statute of limitations had expired almost nine
years before this suit was instituted in 2008.  Accordingly, the
motions for summary judgment filed by BP Amoco Chemical Company,
BP Corporation North America Inc., and Kvaerner U.S. Inc. were
granted on the basis of the limitations period.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Upholds Dismissal of Mayton's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Tennessee, Special Workers' Compensation
Appeals Panel, at Knoxville, upheld the ruling of the Chancery
Court for Roane County, which dismissed Darryl J. Mayton's claim
in a lawsuit filed against Wackenhut Services, Inc.

Judges Sharon G. Lee, Jon Kerry Blackwood, and E. Riley Anderson
entered judgment in Case No. E2010-00907-WC-R3-WC on July 18,
2011.

Darryl Mayton worked as a security officer at the U.S. Department
of Energy reservation in Oak Ridge from 1988 until 2005.  During
that time and in that capacity, Mr. Mayton worked for several
different contractors, and from 2000 until 2005, he worked for
Wackenhut Services, Inc.

Mr. Mayton alleged that he developed chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD) and related pulmonary problems as a result of his
exposure to various toxic substances in the course of his work.

Mr. Mayton testified that his job required that he work both
indoors and outdoors at his workplace and that his presence was
required in areas where he was frequently exposed to various
airborne toxins, including asbestos, silica, exhaust fumes from
diesel and gasoline engines, fluorine gas, welding fumes, nickel
powder, coal dust, and ammonia.

In August 2004, after completing a half-mile run as part of an
annual fitness certification test, Mr. Mayton experienced
shortness of breath and was taken to a local hospital where he was
evaluated and received breathing treatments.  The next day, he
consulted his primary care physician, Dr. Rodney McMillin, who
diagnosed him with COPD.  Mr. Mayton had smoked cigarettes daily
for more than 25 years.

Mr. Mayton's breathing difficulties gradually worsened during the
months following his diagnosis and resulted in his hospitalization
in February 2005.  Although he was subsequently able to return to
his job for a few months, Dr. McMillin removed him from work in
July 2005, and he did not return to work after that date.

After his initial diagnosis by Dr. McMillin, Mr. Mayton was
treated by Dr. Charles Bruton, a pulmonary specialist, and was
also examined by several other pulmonary specialists.

On Aug. 14, 2006, Mr. Mayton filed a "Claim for Benefits Under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act"
with the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs.

Mr. Mayton filed his Request for Benefit Review Conference (BRC)
with the Tennessee Department of Labor on Sept. 4, 2007.  A BRC
was held on Jan. 7, 2009, an impasse was declared, and suit was
filed later that day.  At the time he filed his request, he had
not been paid any worker's compensation benefits.

The trial court found that Mr. Mayton's lung disease was caused by
his employment and that he was permanently and totally disabled as
a result of the condition.  However, the trial court also found
that the statute of limitations began to run on Aug. 14, 2006, the
day that Mr. Mayton filed his claim with the U.S. Department of
Labor.

Because Mr. Mayton did not file his Request for Benefit Review
Conference within one year of that date, the trial court ruled
that his claim for Tennessee workers' compensation benefits was
barred by the one-year statute of limitations and dismissed the
claim.  Mr. Mayton appealed.

Christopher H. Hayes, Esq., of Oak Ridge, Tenn., represented
Darryl J. Mayton.

James Wallace Speed, Esq., and James Allen Callison, Esq., of
Lawrenceville, Ga., represented Wackenhut Services, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Move to Remand in Ellis Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, denied
Linda Ellis' Motion to Remand an asbestos case filed against
various defendants.

The Court also granted Defendants' Motion to Stay.

The case is styled Linda Ellis, Individually and as special
administrator of the estate of Walter Tom, deceased, Plaintiff v.
Pneumo Abex Corp. Pneumo Abex LLC, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., Owens-Illinois Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC, John Crane Inc., Aurora Pump Co.,
Buffalo Pumps Inc., Warren Pumps Inc., Tyco Flow Control Inc.,
Foster Wheeler AG, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, and Crane
Co., Defendants.

District Judge Michael M. Mihm entered judgment in Case No.
11-01128 on June 20, 2011.

On Feb. 16, 2010, Walter Tom, now deceased, and Ms. Ellis filed a
Complaint in state court in McLean County, Ill., alleging that Mr.
Tom was exposed to asbestos during his service aboard the USS
Voglegsang and USS Sylvania.

Plaintiffs alleged that this exposure resulted in Mr. Tom's
contraction of asbestos related lung cancer.  After Mr. Tom's
death, Ms. Ellis filed an amendment to her Amended Complaint on
Jan. 21, 2011, adding CBS Corporation, sued in the present case as
Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC and Crane Company as defendants.

On March 29, 2011, Westinghouse filed a notice to remove the case
to this Court on grounds of asserting a government contractor
defense.  Ms. Ellis moved to remand the action to state court.
Westinghouse has filed a Response to Ms. Ellis' Motion to Remand
and Crane Co. filed an Opposition to Ms. Ellis' Motion to Remand.

Westinghouse moved to stay proceedings pending the transfer of the
present case to MDL-875.  Ms. Ellis filed a Response to CBS
Corporation (Westinghouse's) Motion to Stay Pending Transfer to
MDL-875.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Rulings in Shehadeh Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Jamal Shehadeh,
Plaintiff v. John Cox., et al, Defendants.

District Judge Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action No.
10-985-GPM on July 14, 2011.

Jamal Shehadeh was transferred to Vienna Correctional Center on
Nov. 10, 2010, and was housed on the second floor of Building 19.
This 100-man dormitory had only two working toilets, which Mr.
Shehadeh shared with about 80 to 115 other inmates.  Many times,
he was forced to wait for over an hour to use the toilet, which
resulted in severe discomfort.  The dormitory also had other
health and safety problems, according to Mr. Shehadeh.

The heat did not work and several windows were broken, exposing
Mr. Shehadeh to near freezing temperatures for a 10-day period.
He also claimed there was black mold on the shower walls and
ceilings, and asbestos insulation on the steam pipes, which
exposed him to disease-causing mold spores and asbestos particles.

Mr. Shehadeh alleges that after he complained about these
conditions, he learned from Defendant David that Building 19 was
not supposed to be housing offenders.

Mr. Shehadeh made numerous verbal and written complaints to
various Defendants between November 10 and Nov. 23, 2010.  The
prison staff working in the housing unit to whom he complained
were Defendants Campbell, Howard, Felker, Suits, Allstad, David,
Bates, and John Does 1 through 13.

On Nov. 19, 2010, Mr. Shehadeh filed an emergency grievance with
Defendant Cox, and wrote letters complaining of the conditions to
Defendants Taylor and Quinn, to which they did not respond.  On
November 27, he submitted grievances to Defendants Luce and Wiggs,
which they denied, and which were later reviewed and denied by
Defendant Benton.

Mr. Shehadeh also alleged he experienced retaliation for raising
these complaints.  Upon his arrival at Vienna, he spent about two
weeks on the second floor of Building 19.  The second floor is
where new inmates are first housed before being moved to the third
floor. On November 23, he was moved to the third floor, where
inmates are placed while waiting to be transferred to general
population.

However, after three days on the third floor, Mr. Shehadeh was
moved back to the second floor, which he alleged "had never been
done before."  He further alleged that the second floor is "used
to punish problem offenders since offenders [there] are denied the
same priviledges [sic] as offenders in general population."

On Dec. 4, 2010, Mr. Shehadeh was moved from Building 19 into
Housing Unit 5.  The next day, he was assaulted by another inmate,
and was unable to summon help from any prison staff member until
nearly two hours after the assault.  He alleged that no staff
members were near enough to his location to hear his and other
inmates' calls for help.  He suffered a concussion and other
injuries and spent two days in the prison hospital.

Finally, on Dec. 22, 2010, Defendants Suits and Campbell put Mr.
Shehadeh on a transfer bus to Lincoln, Ill.  While on the bus, he
was denied access to the restroom for six and a half hours except
for one stop where he was allowed to urinate into a bucket in the
presence of a female officer.  He claimed he endured similar
conditions during transfers on Aug. 11, 2010, and Nov. 10, 2010.
He sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages.

It was ordered that Count Three failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and thus was dismissed with prejudice.
Defendants Luce, Wiggs, Benton, Quinn and Taylor were dismissed
from this action with prejudice.

As to Count One, Mr. Shehadeh may proceed on his claim that the
cold temperatures in Building 19 violated his constitutional
rights, against Defendants Campbell, Howard, Felker, Suits,
Allstad, David, Bates, and the 13 John Doe Defendants.  However,
all other portions of Count One were dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Records $114MM Reserves Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s favorable prior year reserve
development in the current quarter included a US$114 million
after-tax (US$175 million pre-tax) increase to asbestos reserves,
compared to a US$91 million after-tax (US$140 million pre-tax)
increase in the prior year quarter, according to a Company press
release dated Oct. 19, 2011.

The reserve strengthening in the current quarter was primarily
driven by increases in the Company's estimate for projected
settlement and defense costs related to a broad number of
policyholders and higher projected payments on assumed reinsurance
accounts.

The increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense
costs resulted from recent payment trends being moderately higher
than previously anticipated due to the impact of the current
litigation environment.

Notwithstanding these payment trends, the Company's overall view
of the underlying asbestos environment is essentially unchanged
from recent periods.  The prior year quarter included a US$70
million pre-tax benefit from the reduction in the allowance for
uncollectible reinsurance resulting from a favorable ruling
related to a reinsurance dispute.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property
casualty insurance for auto, home and business.  Its diverse
business lines offer customers a wide range of coverage sold
primarily through independent agents and brokers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Still Has Insurance-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to be
subject to insurance-related asbestos litigation.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers (not
including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in
West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in West
Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by
inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims.  The
plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims
and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages,
directly on insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate
handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in
Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts.  These suits are
collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.

The plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages.  Lawsuits
seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily
violations of purported common law duties to third parties, have
also been asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC.
The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as
the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding
the injunction, additional common law claims were filed against
TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.

Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final
order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims,
and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred
by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the
pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common
Law Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order).  The Clarifying
Order also applies to similar direct action claims that may be
filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties
to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en
banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment,
which were denied.  TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions
for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions
were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding
that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and
Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against
TPC.  On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the
Clarifying Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their
appeal of the order approving the settlement, and that request was
granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.

On Aug. 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
March 22, 2010 opinion, and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
seeking an order from the Supreme Court requiring the Second
Circuit to comply with the Supreme Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in
TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court denied the Petitions on Nov. 29,
2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on Sept. 2, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010, respectively, arguing
that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been met and
seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.

On Sept. 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On Dec. 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.

On Jan. 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its Dec. 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to pay
the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On Jan. 21,
2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's Jan. 20,
2011 judgment.

On Jan. 24, 2011, certain of the plaintiffs in the Common Law
Claims actions appealed that portion of the bankruptcy court's
Jan. 20, 2011 judgment that denied their request for an order of
contempt and for sanctions.  Oral argument on the appeals has been
scheduled for Oct. 26, 2011.

SPC is a party to pending direct action cases in Texas state court
asserting common law claims.  All such cases that are still
pending and in which SPC has been served are currently on the
inactive docket in Texas state court.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property
casualty insurance for auto, home and business.  Its diverse
business lines offer customers a wide range of coverage sold
primarily through independent agents and brokers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.533-Bil. Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net reserves for asbestos-related
claims amounted to US$2.533 billion at and for the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$2.658 billion at and for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 19, 2011.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property
casualty insurance for auto, home and business.  Its diverse
business lines offer customers a wide range of coverage sold
primarily through independent agents and brokers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Indus. Records $575MM Settlement at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under current
liabilities) amounted to US$575 million as of Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$563 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to a
Company press release dated Oct. 20, 2011.

Net asbestos settlement was US$3 million during the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.  Net asbestos settlement
was US$9 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011 and
Sept. 30, 2010.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. provides coatings and
specialty products.  Founded in 1883, the Company operates in more
than 60 countries around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Has $155MM Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$155 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared
with US$166 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 21, 2011
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The current asbestos liability was US$11 million for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$13 million for the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos.

About 20% of the recorded liability related to asserted claims and
about 80% related to unasserted claims at Sept. 30, 2011.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and the Company has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at Sept.
30, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2010.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific
Railroad unit is a rail carrier that operates more than 77,000
freight cars and about 8,000 locomotives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $1.574-Bil. Long-Term Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$1.574 billion as of Sept. 30, 2011 and
US$1.557 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Oct. 21, 2011 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$748 million as of Sept. 30, 2011 and
US$825 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant
in personal injury actions related to asbestos.  The Company did
not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation
products or other construction materials that have been identified
as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast
majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into
two general categories: refractory products and friction products.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
are Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $38MM Sept. 30 Litigation Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, of US$38 million during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$48 million during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company recorded litigation charges, net of insurance, of
US$116 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$135 million during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2010.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
are Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $685MM Sept. 30 NARCO Receivable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded an insurance receivable
corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and
future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$685 million as of
Sept. 30, 2011 and US$718 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO) from
1979 to 1986.  NARCO produced refractory products (high
temperature bricks and cement) that were sold largely to the steel
industry in the East and Midwest.  Less than 2% of NARCO'S
products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement).  NARCO retained all liability for all
other claims.  On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.  The Company also agreed to
pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a
plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company (which
amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent
company US$40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO
indebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan
of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.  In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of
the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument took place on May 21, 2009
and the matter was submitted for decision.  In connection with the
settlement of an insurance coverage litigation matter, the insurer
appellants withdrew their appeal regarding the NARCO Plan.  On
Aug. 3, 2010 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order
formally dismissing the NARCO appeal.

The Third Circuit reheard the affiliates' appeal en banc on
Oct. 13, 2010 and, on May 4, 2011, reversed the Bankruptcy Court's
confirmation order and remanded for further proceedings.  The
affiliates' case has been returned to the Bankruptcy Court where
the parties are working to resolve their disputes.  The affiliates
also filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims of US$1.124 billion as of Sept. 30, 2011
and US$1.125 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
are Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Facing Coverage Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to face an asbestos-related
declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York,
County of New York.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance
Company filed the action against the Company and other insurance
carriers that provide coverage for NARCO (North American
Refractories Company) asbestos claims, seeking a declaration
regarding coverage obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims
under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and the
other insurance carriers.

The other insurance carriers asserted cross claims against the
Company seeking declarations regarding their coverage obligations
for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance
coverage issued by them.  Since then, the Company has entered into
settlement agreements resolving all asbestos coverage issues with
certain of these insurance carriers.

About US$65 million of remaining unsettled coverage is included in
the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at Sept. 30,
2011.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and expects to prevail in this matter.  In the third quarter
of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical choice of law issue
concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related
asbestos liabilities to triggered policies.  The plaintiffs
appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by the
intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009.

Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the
highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.  A related
New Jersey action brought by the Company has been dismissed, but
all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the
New York action.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
are Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces 22.8T Bendix Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials business
faced 22,800 asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2011, compared with 22,480 claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, Bendix reported 2,719
claims filed and 2,399 claims resolved.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, Bendix reported 4,302 claims filed and 1,762 claims
resolved.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$613 million at Sept. 30, 2011 and
US$594 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement
of pending and future Bendix related asbestos claims of US$160 as
of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$157 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest
are Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process
products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and
landing systems).


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *