CAR_Public/111111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 224

                             Headlines

AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Investor Files Securities Class Action
AMGEN INC: Securities Fraud Class Action Can Proceed
APPLE: Settles Class Action Over MagSafe T-Shaped Connectors
AXIS CAPITAL: U.S. Units Await Final Approval of Suit Settlement
B-4 PARTNERS: Sued for Defrauding R.E. Loan's Investors

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Court to Try Liability Issues in Feb. 2012
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Class Suits
CLEAR CHANNEL: Expert Discovery in "Live Concerts" Suits Ongoing
COMCAST CORP: To Seek Review of Class Certification Ruling
COMCAST CORP: Panel Rehearing Petition Pending in California Suit

COMCAST CORP: Plea to Compel Arbitration of Claims Pending in MDL
DIAMOND FOODS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
DIAMOND FOODS: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Oklahoma
ECOLAB INC: Awaits Approval of Pact Resolving Merger-related Suit

EDISON MISSION: Continues to Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
EDISON MISSION: "Midwest Generation" Suits Dismissed in Illinois
EDISON MISSION: Court Dismissed "Homer City" Suit in Pennsylvania
FIRST MIDWEST: Bank Faces Class Suit Over Debit Card Practices
GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Class Actions Over Illegal Foreclosure Fees

HEALTHSPRING INC: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Tenn. & Delaware
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues to Defend "Frankhouser" Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues to Defend "Roderick" Suit in Kansas
HUMANA INC: Trial in "Sacred Heart" Suit Set for October 2012
HUNTSMAN CORP: Dismissed From "Polyether Polyols" Class Suit

HUNTSMAN CORP: April 2 Class Certification Hearing in Canada
HUNTSMAN CORP: Calif. Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Kansas Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Certification Hearing Set for August 16
J.B. HUNT: Proceedings in Calif. Drivers' Class Suit Remain Stayed
KADANT INC: Awaits OK of Settlement in Suit vs. Composites Unit

KFORCE INC: Expects to Pay $2.5MM Calif. Settlement by Year End
MASTERCARD INC: Continues to File Dismissals of Currency Suits
MASTERCARD INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over ATM Rule Surcharges
MASTERCARD INC: Appeals in New Mexico & Calif. Suits Still Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Sept. 12 Trial Date Set in Interchange Fee Suit

MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend Canadian Interchange Fee Suits
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Settles Class Action Over Kombucha
MF GLOBAL: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
NORTHERN TRUST: Awaits Court Approval of Deal Dismissing Ill. Suit
NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ill.

PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend "Sotoudeh" Suit in Calif.
PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Employees' Suit in Fla.
PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend "Carter" Suit in Calif.
PONIARD PHARMA: Awaits Approval of MOA Dismissing Calif. Suits
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Denial Appeal Pending

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cruise and Mullaney Suit
RENWICK SPENCE: May 2013 Trial Set for Sexual Abuse Class Action
SOLTA MEDICAL: Aesthera Continues to Defend Suit in Connecticut
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend South Carolina Class Action
STEWART INFORMATION: Awaits Outcome of RESPA Claims Appeals

STURM ROGER: Consolidated Suit in Connecticut Still Ongoing
TARGET: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
TAYLOR BEAN: WARN Act Settlement Initially Approved
WELLCARE HEALTH: Issued $112.5MM Notes Under Class Suit Settlement
XCEL ENERGY: Continues to Defend 2nd C02 Class Suit in Miss.

ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Suit Dismissal

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Crane Co. Surge to 58,572 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argument in O'Neil Appeal Slated for This Month
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still Pursues Appeal in Chief Brewer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodard's Appeal in Case v. Crane Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeals in Bell, Nelson Actions Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules v. Crane Co. in Ronald Dummitt Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $82.9MM Costs for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Posts $536.55MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries' Sept. 30 Liability at $42.5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $9.3MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 650 Active Cases at Sept. 30 Open v. U.S. Steel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff's Appeal Dismissed in Noreen Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Affirms Ruling in Oakley Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Various Rulings Issued in Abney Lawsuit in Ky.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. District Court Issues Decision in Munson

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inactive Quaker Unit Still Faces Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Subject to Erica P. John Fund Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Asbestos Reserves Total $67MM at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Group Posts $38MM A&E Charge

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $5MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Posts $34MM Payments at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Decide on Kurns v. Railroad Friction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma-Related Deaths Rising in Minnesota
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mold Solutions to Help Clean Up Homes in Fresno

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Defence Ministry Settles Case With Devereux
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Being Dumped at Moreland City Locations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific's Bid Denied in Larson Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Ruling in Aidnik Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Court Issues Split Rulings in Fuller Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal Move Granted in St. Matthews Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Ruling in Four Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. District Court Dismisses Thomas' Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. District Court Issues Ruling in Bryan Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. Court Favors CSX Transportation in Gillon

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GAO States Bankruptcy Trust System Is "Broken"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard, Construction Waste Dumped in Perthshire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Stronger" Procedures in Place in NSW Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lewis Claim v. 17 Firms Filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $4.4MM Liability, Defense Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Has $635MM Non-Current Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Has $51MM Claims Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Posts $1.7MM Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Defendant Cases




                          *********

AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Investor Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Terin Miller, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that an
investor has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
all others who purchased Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. securities
between April 29, 2010 and Oct. 19, 2011.

The suit alleges the corporate officers of the Canadian mining
company "engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
the company's stock price."

Agnico-Eagle, founded in 1953, is involved in exploration,
development and production of minerals in Canada, Finland and
Mexico.  The company's main exploration is for gold, while it also
explores for silver, copper, zinc and lead.  The Toronto company's
flagship property includes the LaRonde mine in the southern
portion of the Abitibi volcanic belt in Canada.

The suit, filed by investor Jerome Stone in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan on Nov. 7, 2011, alleges the company and officers
"failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the company's
overall operational and financial condition and well being
resulting from significant problems in the company's mining
operations and gold production at its Goldex mine in Val d'Or,
Quebec."

On Oct. 19, 2011, the company announced it was suspending mining
operations and gold production at its Goldex mine, citing a rocks
mechanics consulting firm recommending the halt until further
investigation is conducted at the site.

The lawsuit alleges the company's "wrongful acts, and false and
misleading statements and omissions" caused a precipitous decline
in the value of the company's stock.

Dale Coffin, corporate director of communications for Agnico-
Eagle, said in an e-mailed statement on Nov. 8: "The Company
believes the class action to be completely without merit, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action."


AMGEN INC: Securities Fraud Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that stockholders can
move ahead with a class action alleging that the biotechnology
company Amgen inflated its stock price by misstating and
withholding safety information about its anemia drugs, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Nov. 8.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had concerns about
Amgen's products, according to the consolidated securities-fraud
action filed by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds and
other investors.  Amgen allegedly hid the true nature of these
concerns and "concealed details about a clinical trial that was
canceled over concerns that Amgen's product exacerbated tumor
growth in a small number of patients," according to the court's
description of the case.

Investors also claim that Amgen misrepresented the on-label safety
of the drugs and "promoted significant off-label usage, in
violation of federal drug branding statutes."

The investors moved for federal class status in Los Angeles,
arguing that Amgen's alleged misstatements and omissions had
inflated the company's stock price and cost them money.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez found the allegations
sufficient, and the plaintiffs sufficiently linked, to certify the
class.  Specifically, he found that the plaintiffs had reliance in
common based on the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption: "the
principle that the market price of a security traded in an
efficient market reflects all public information and therefore
that a buyer of the security is presumed to have relied on the
truthfulness of that information in purchasing the security,"
according to the ruling.

The 9th Circuit agreed in an interlocutory appeal, affirming the
lower court and rejecting Amgen's call for proof of materiality
rather than mere plausible allegations among the class.

"Plaintiffs need not prove materiality to avail themselves of the
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance at the class
certification stage," Judge Barry Silverman wrote for the
unanimous, three-judge panel in Pasadena.  "They need only allege
materiality with sufficient plausibility."

Judge Silverman added that the proposed class had "plausibly
alleged that several of the defendants' public statements about
Amgen's pharmaceutical products were false and material."

"Coupled with the concession that Amgen's stock traded in an
efficient market," he wrote, "this was sufficient to invoke the
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance."

A copy of the Opinion in Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds v. Amgen Inc., et al., No. 09-56965 (9th Cir.), is available
at http://is.gd/25Jdnc


APPLE: Settles Class Action Over MagSafe T-Shaped Connectors
------------------------------------------------------------
Slash Lane, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple has
reached a settlement on a class-action lawsuit over T-shaped
MagSafe connectors for MacBook and MacBook Pro models that can
fray and come apart.

The company on Nov. 8 posted a new support document detailing the
Apple Adapter Replacement Program, revealing that some customers
have received notices referring to the program.  As part of the
resolution, Apple has referred customers to the Web site
adaptersettlement.com, which gives details on a cash payment
available to those who own a 60-watt or 85-watt MagSafe MPM-1 T-
shaped Power Adapter.

The power adapter shipped with both MacBook and MacBook Pro
models, and could also have been purchased separately.  Over time,
some of those adapters can show signs of "Strain Relief Damage,"
in which the internal wires can fray and become exposed.

Apple was hit with a class-action lawsuit related to its T-shaped
MagSafe power adapters in 2009, asserting that the faulty
connectors could trigger sparks and become a potential fire
hazard.  Another suit was filed a year ago claiming that Apple's
"dangerous" MagSafe included with a 2007 MacBook Pro caused a
major fire at a Connecticut home.

The new settlement applies to customers who may have purchased a
replacement adapter within the first three years of owning their
MacBook or MacBook Pro with the T-shaped MagSafe adapter.

A court must still approve the proposed settlement, but the Web
site reveals that customers who bought a replacement adapter in
the first year of owning the faulty MagSafe adapter could be
entitled to a maximum of $79, while second-year purchases could
receive $50, and third-year replacements could garner $35.


AXIS CAPITAL: U.S. Units Await Final Approval of Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axis Capital Holdings Limited's U.S. insurance subsidiaries are
awaiting final approval of their settlement of a class action
lawsuit pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's
November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Axis
Capital Holdings Limited's U.S. insurance subsidiaries. In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation was filed on August 15,
2005 in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey and includes as defendants numerous insurance brokers and
insurance companies. The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") violations in
connection with the payment of contingent commissions and
manipulation of insurance bids and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount. On October 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part,
motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs
to file supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to
allege their antitrust and RICO claims. After plaintiffs filed
their supplemental pleadings, defendants renewed their motions to
dismiss. On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without
prejudice plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted
plaintiffs thirty (30) days to file another amended complaint
and/or revised RICO Statement and Statements of Particularity. In
May 2007, plaintiffs filed (i) a Second Consolidated Amended
Commercial Class Action complaint, (ii) a Revised Particularized
Statement Describing the Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the
Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint, and
(iii) a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO Case
Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4). On June 21, 2007, the
defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss. On September 28,
2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. On
October 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of all
adverse orders and decisions to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in April 2009. On
August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the antitrust and RICO claims
arising from the contingent commission arrangements and remanded
the case to the District Court with respect to the manipulation of
insurance bids allegations. The Company continued to believe that
the lawsuit was completely without merit and on that basis
vigorously defended the filed action. However, for the sole
purpose of avoiding additional litigation costs, the Company
reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs during the first
quarter of 2011 to settle all claims and causes of action in this
matter for an immaterial amount. On June 27, 2011, the District
Court preliminarily approved the terms and conditions of the
settlement.


B-4 PARTNERS: Sued for Defrauding R.E. Loan's Investors
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that companies that manage, audit
or represent the now bankrupt R.E. Loans, and the officers of
those companies, defrauded investors by concealing the fund's true
status and other relevant information, a class action filed in
Alameda County Superior Court claims.

The case is Fredric Mendes v. B-4 Partners LLC; Bar-K Inc.


CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Court to Try Liability Issues in Feb. 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court overseeing the multi-district litigation captioned In Re:
Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" will begin trying
liability issues arising out of the "Deepwater Horizon Matter" in
February 2012, according to Cameron International Corporation's
November 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A blowout preventer originally manufactured by the Company and
delivered in 2001, and for which the Company was one of the
suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was deployed by the
drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when the rig experienced a tragic
explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in bodily injuries
and loss of life, loss of the rig, and an unprecedented discharge
of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

While the Company did not operate the BOP, nor did it have anyone
on the rig at the time of the incident, claims for personal
injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from the
Deepwater Horizon incident have been asserted against the Company
and others.  Additionally, claims for pollution and other economic
damages, including business interruption and loss of revenue, have
been, and we anticipate will continue to be, asserted against all
parties associated with this incident, including the Company, BP
p.l.c and certain of its subsidiaries, the operator of Mississippi
Canyon Block 252 upon which the Macondo well was being drilled,
Transocean Ltd. and certain of its affiliates, the rig owner and
operator, as well as other equipment and service companies. The
Company has been named as one of several defendants in over 350
lawsuits filed and presently pending in a variety of Federal and
State courts, a number of which have been filed as class actions
or multi-plaintiff actions.  Other defendants including BP,
Transocean and Halliburton have asserted cross-claims against the
Company as it has asserted such claims against them.  Most of the
lawsuits pending and presently pending in Federal courts have been
consolidated into a single proceeding before a single Federal
judge under the Federal rules governing multi-district litigation.
The consolidated case is styled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL
Docket No. 2179.  There are also a small number of cases filed and
presently pending in state courts.  The States of Alabama and
Louisiana have brought a claim for destruction of and/or harm to
natural resources against those associated with this incident,
including Cameron, in State of Alabama, ex. rel. Troy King,
Attorney General vs. Transocean Ltd., et. al., Cause No.
2:10cv00691, U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ala., and State of Louisiana vs.
BP Exploration & Production , Inc., et. al. MDL No. 2179, as have
a number of other local governmental entities and three Mexican
states.  It is possible other such claims may be asserted against
the Company by the United States Government (USG) and by other
Gulf and/or East Coast States, whose Attorneys General have
notified the Company to preserve documents in the event of a
claim, and possibly by other parties.  The USG has brought suit
against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident
for recovery under statutes such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA) and the Clean Water Act, which lawsuit has been made part of
the MDL proceedings.  While the Company was not named as a
defendant in this lawsuit by the USG, BP has brought a third-party
complaint for contribution under OPA against several parties
associated with this incident which were not named by the USG,
including the Company.  A shareholder derivative lawsuit, Berzner
vs. Erikson, et al., Cause No. 2010-71817 in the 190th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, has been filed against the
Company's directors in connection with this incident and its
aftermath alleging the Company's directors failed to exercise
their fiduciary duties regarding the safety and efficacy of its
products.

The Federal Court overseeing the multi-district litigation has
ruled that it will begin trying liability issues arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon Matter in February 2012, and has issued a
number of orders to effectuate this scheduling.

The Company has retained counsel and is, along with counsel,
actively participating in the investigation into this matter and
the litigation, and its attendant discovery, arising out of this
matter.  The Company's counsel is currently evaluating the
theories of recovery being relied on by the claimants and cross-
claimants and the damages they are asserting as well as its
defenses, both factual and legal.  Through September 30, 2011, the
Company had incurred and expensed legal fees of $46.9 million.
The Company has not accrued any amounts relating to this matter
because it does not believe at the present time a loss is
probable.

Cameron International Corporation's operations are organized into
three separate business segments, namely: Drilling & Production
Systems (DPS), Valves & Measurement (V&M) and Process &
Compression Systems (PCS).


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s former affiliate, RRI Energy,
Inc., was a participant in gas trading in the California and
Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as
class actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust
laws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms
of relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been
released or dismissed from all but two of such cases. CenterPoint
Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a
defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada
alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in
2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants in the case, each
of whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for resale
during the relevant period, based on federal preemption.  The
plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, CenterPoint Energy
was a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that
was dismissed in 2007, but in March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court. CenterPoint Energy
believes that neither it nor CES is a proper defendant in these
remaining cases and will continue to pursue dismissal from those
cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of
these remaining matters to have a material impact on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No updates were reported in CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s November 1,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Expert Discovery in "Live Concerts" Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is still ongoing in connection with the class
action lawsuits filed against Clear Channel Communications Inc.
and its subsidiary, according to the Company's October 31, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company and its subsidiary are co-defendants with Live Nation
(which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005) in
22 putative class actions filed by different named plaintiffs in
various district courts throughout the country beginning in May
2006.  These actions generally allege that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock
concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct.
They seek damages in an undetermined amount.  On April 17, 2006,
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these
class action proceedings in the Central District of California.
The district court has certified classes in five "template" cases
involving five regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York,
Chicago and Denver.  Fact discovery has closed, and expert
discovery is ongoing.

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


COMCAST CORP: To Seek Review of Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation intends to file a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court asking that it review a ruling affirming the
class certification in antitrust cases pending in Pennsylvania,
according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

Comcast Corporation and its affiliates are defendants in two
purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the
United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts
and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in
the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is the Company's customer base in the
"Boston Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania
case is its customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were
certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. The
Company appealed class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster
case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
class certification in August 2011 and denied its petition for a
rehearing en banc in September 2011. As a result, notice to the
class is being made and is expected to be completed by the end of
2011. At the same time, the Company intends to file a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking that it review the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. In March 2010, the Company
moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims in the Philadelphia Cluster; a stay that had been issued on
the summary judgment motion pending the class certification appeal
was lifted upon the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling. The
plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed
pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.


COMCAST CORP: Panel Rehearing Petition Pending in California Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for panel rehearing is pending in the class action
lawsuit filed against Comcast Corporation in California, according
to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Comcast and its affiliates are among the defendants in a purported
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2007. The potential
class is comprised of all persons residing in the United States
who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service
provided by one of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants who produce video programming have entered into
agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming
via cable and satellite (including us), which preclude the
distributor defendants from reselling channels to customers on an
"unbundled" basis in violation of federal antitrust laws. The
plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief requiring
each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its
customers on an "unbundled" basis. In October 2009, the Central
District of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice. In June 2011, a panel of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order. In
July 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a panel rehearing
and a rehearing en banc.


COMCAST CORP: Plea to Compel Arbitration of Claims Pending in MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation's motion to compel arbitration of most claims
in a multidistrict litigation alleging antitrust violations
remains pending, according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company and its affiliates are the defendant in 22 purported
class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the
country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-
trial proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November
2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation,
the plaintiffs allege that the Company improperly "tie" the rental
of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state
antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a
claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of the Company's premium cable customers and on
behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from
California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In
January 2010, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive
trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West
Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their
unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on
behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging
only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on
behalf of a nationwide class of the Company's premium cable
customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable
customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, the
Company moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs'
claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration.


DIAMOND FOODS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action (CV 11 5399 RS) filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Diamond during the period from December 9, 2010
through and including November 4, 2011, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  This class action is
brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased DMND securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 6, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact:

          Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          Telephone: 888-476-6529
                    (or 888.4-POMLAW) Toll free, x350
          E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its earnings
by improperly accounting for certain crop payments to walnut
growers; (2) the Company's acquisition of Pringles snack business
would be delayed; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 1, 2011, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that the Chairman of the Audit Committee received an
external communication regarding Diamond's accounting for certain
crop payments to walnut growers, which the Company's Audit
Committee is now investigating.  As a result, the Company is
delaying the acquisition of the Pringles snack business from The
Procter & Gamble Company for at least six months.  On this news,
Diamond shares declined $11.33 per share, or more than 17.6%, to
close at $52.79 per share on November 2, 2011.

On November 3, 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported, among other
things, that the "investigation centers around the timing of a
recent payment to walnut growers for their 2011 crop" and that at
least one of the improper payments is estimated at $50 million.
On this news, Diamond shares declined an additional $6.39 per
share or 12% in two consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$46.40 per share on November 4, 2011.

On November 5, 2011, Barron's published an article stating, among
other things, that had the Company "properly booked costs for
fiscal 2011 . . . it would've earned as little as $1.14 a share,"
instead of the reported earnings for the fiscal year ended July
2011 of $2.61 per share, before noncash charges and expenses.  On
this news, the stock fell an additional $7.31 per share or nearly
16%, to close at $39.09 per share on November 7, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C.


DIAMOND FOODS: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, along with Hausfeld LLP, on Nov. 8 filed a
suit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.  The lawsuit, captioned Woodward v. Diamond Foods, Inc.
et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Diamond's common stock during the period April 5, 2011
through and including November 1, 2011.

On November 1, 2011, Diamond announced that it had received a
communication from outside the Company questioning the timing of
certain payments to walnut growers and therefore was postponing
its $2.35 billion acquisition of Pringles, in order to allow
Diamond to complete an internal accounting investigation.

The complaint asserts that Diamond, through its officers and
directors, made false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's internal financial controls and its
accounting for certain payments to crop growers.  These statements
are alleged to have been materially false and misleading when made
because: (i) the Company was suffering from grossly deficient
internal controls and therefore was susceptible to accounting
fraud; (ii) Defendants failed to disclose the true nature of the
payment to walnut growers and the associated accounting
irregularities; (iii) the Company's financial statements were
inaccurate in numerous material respects; and (iv) Defendants
failed to disclose the risks that the lack of internal controls
and the improper accounting of payments posed to the proposed
Pringles transaction.

Diamond's stock price has dropped approximately $25.00 per share
since the November 1, 2011 announcement, erasing over $550 million
in market capitalization.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than
January 9, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block &
Leviton to discuss your rights in the case.  You may also retain
counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorchester Minerals, L.P.'s operating partnership continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit in Texas County,
Oklahoma, according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural
Residents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma
regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences.
Dorchester Minerals Operating LP, the operating partnership, now
owns and operates the properties formerly owned by Dorchester
Hugoton. These properties contribute a major portion of the NPI
amounts paid to the Company.  NPIs are transaction structures
utilized to avoid recognition of unrelated business taxable income
attributable to participating, working and other cost bearing
interests in oil and gas properties.  On April 9, 2007,
plaintiffs, for immaterial costs, dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the operating partnership regarding such
residential gas use.  On October 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed
severed claims against the operating partnership regarding royalty
underpayments, which the Texas County District Court subsequently
dismissed with a grant of time to replead.  On January 27, 2006,
one of the original plaintiffs again sued the operating
partnership for underpayment of royalty, seeking class action
certification.  On October 1, 2007, the Texas County District
Court granted the operating partnership's motion for summary
judgment finding no royalty underpayments.  Subsequently, the
District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration,
and the plaintiff filed an appeal.  On March 31, 2010, the appeal
decision reversed and remanded to the Texas County District Court
to resolve material issues of fact.  On June 30, 2011, the
District Court issued a revised partial summary judgment in favor
of the operating partnership.  A claim of underpayment of royalty
remains pending.  An adverse final decision could reduce amounts
the Company receives from the NPIs.


ECOLAB INC: Awaits Approval of Pact Resolving Merger-related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. is awaiting court approval of an agreement-in-
principle in settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from the Company's merger with Nalco Holding Company,
according to Ecolab's October 31, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Following the announcement of the NALCO merger on July 20, 2011,
four purported stockholders of Nalco filed putative class action
lawsuits against the members of Nalco's board of directors and
Ecolab, among other defendants, in the Circuit Court of the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, State of Illinois.
The court consolidated the four putative class action lawsuits
into one action.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed
a consolidated amended complaint.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the planned merger
transaction is the result of an unfair and inadequate process,
that the consideration to be received by Nalco stockholders in the
merger is inadequate, that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus (filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the merger) contains misstatements
and omissions and that the members of Nalco's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Nalco stockholders.  The
consolidated amended complaint additionally alleges that Nalco and
Ecolab aided and abetted the Nalco board of directors in their
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.  The consolidated action
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining Ecolab and
Nalco from proceeding with the merger.  On October 24, 2011, the
parties to the consolidated action reached an agreement in
principle regarding settlement of the consolidated action.  Under
the settlement, the consolidated action will be dismissed with
prejudice on the merits and all defendants will be released from
any and all claims relating to, among other things, the merger and
any related disclosures.  The settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including consummation of the merger, completion of
certain confirmatory discovery, class certification and final
approval by the court.  In exchange for the releases provided in
the settlement, Ecolab and Nalco have provided additional
disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus requested by
plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  The parties have agreed
that the lead plaintiff may apply to the court for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, which, under
certain circumstances, the defendants have agreed not to oppose.


EDISON MISSION: Continues to Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy continues to defend a class action complaint
in Mississippi relating to the emission of greenhouse gases that
is alleged to have increased Hurricane Katrina's force, according
to the Company's November 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, naming among a large number of
defendants, Edison International, EME, and three wholly owned
subsidiaries of EME (Edison Mission Energy Fuel, Edison Mission
Energy Petroleum, and Edison Mission Energy Services). Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants' activities resulted in emissions of
substantial quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed
to climate change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to
have increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina. The
lawsuit alleges causes of action for negligence, public and
private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages. The claims in this lawsuit are nearly
identical to a subset of the claims that were raised against many
of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in,
and dismissed by, the same federal district court where the
current case has been filed. The Company's parent Edison
International was dismissed as a defendant in this complaint in
July 2011, but EME and the three subsidiaries remain defendants.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.



EDISON MISSION: "Midwest Generation" Suits Dismissed in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court dismissed the complaints filed by residents
living near Midwest Generation, LLC's Crawford and Fisk
facilities, according to Edison Mission Energy's November 2, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, two complaints were filed against Midwest Generation
in the Northern District of Illinois by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk facilities on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance,
negligence, trespass, and strict liability. The plaintiffs sought
to have their lawsuits certified as a class action and requested
injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
In October 2011, the complaints were dismissed for lack of federal
jurisdiction. The Company does not know whether the plaintiffs
will appeal the dismissal or file a complaint in state court.

Adverse decisions in these cases could involve penalties and
remedial actions that could have a material impact on the
financial condition and results of operations of Midwest
Generation and EME. EME cannot predict the outcome of these
matters or estimate the impact on the Midwest Generation plants,
or its and Midwest Generation's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EDISON MISSION: Court Dismissed "Homer City" Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Pennsylvania dismissed a purported class action in
connection with EME Homer City Generation L.P.'s coal plant,
according to Edison Mission Energy's  November 2, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In January 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a
complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Homer
City, the sale-leaseback owner participants of the Homer City
plant, and two prior owners of the Homer City plant. The complaint
alleged violations of the PSD and Title V provisions of the CAA,
as a result of projects in the 1990s performed by prior owners
without PSD permits and the subsequent failure to incorporate
emissions limitations that meet BACT into the station's Title V
operating permit. In addition to seeking penalties ranging from
$32,500 to $37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint called
for an injunction ordering Homer City to install controls
sufficient to meet BACT emission rates at all units subject to the
complaint and for other remedies. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, the State of New York and the State of
New Jersey intervened in the lawsuit.

Also in January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback
owner participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of
the Homer City plant, EME, and Edison International, claiming that
emissions from the Homer City plant had adversely affected their
health and property values. The plaintiffs sought to have their
suit certified as a class action and requested injunctive relief,
the funding of a health assessment study and medical monitoring,
as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

On October 12, 2011, all of the claims in the US EPA's lawsuit
were dismissed with prejudice. On October 13, 2011, the claims in
the purported class action lawsuit that were based on the federal
CAA were dismissed with prejudice, while state law statutory and
common law claims were dismissed without prejudice to re-file in
state court should the plaintiffs choose to do so. EME does not
know whether the US EPA and the other plaintiffs in these cases
will appeal the dismissal of these cases, or whether plaintiffs in
the purported class action lawsuit will file a complaint in state
court. If the plaintiffs are able to revive the lawsuits, adverse
decisions in these cases could involve penalties, remedial actions
and damages that could have a material impact on the financial
condition and results of operations of Homer City and EME.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


FIRST MIDWEST: Bank Faces Class Suit Over Debit Card Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.'s bank subsidiary faces a purported
class action lawsuit filed by customers over the bank's debit card
transaction practices, according to the Company's Oct. 28, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2011, the Company's wholly owned banking subsidiary,
First Midwest Bank was named in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of
certain of the Bank's customers who incurred overdraft fees.  The
lawsuit is based on the Bank's practices pursuant to debit card
transactions, and alleges, among other things, that these
practices have resulted in customers being unfairly assessed
overdraft fees.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and other relief, including restitution.  The Company
believes that the complaint contains significant inaccuracies and
factual misstatements and that the Bank has meritorious defenses.
As a result, the Bank intends to vigorously defend itself against
the allegations in the lawsuit.


GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Class Actions Over Illegal Foreclosure Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that four companies,
including GMAC Mortgage and BAC Home Loans charge illegal
attorneys fees during foreclosures, according to two class actions
in St. Louis County Court.

Lead plaintiff Mimi Fowler filed both class actions, one against
BAC Home Loans Servicing, Kozeny & McCubbin LC and Kozeny Lenders,
the other against GMAC Mortgage, South & Associates PC and South
Lenders.

Ms. Fowler says Missouri law limits compensation for a trustee's
services to a commission on the amount of sale: 2% of the first
$1,000, 1% of the next $4,000 and 0.5% of any amount over $5,000.

She says the defendants charged attorney's fees for legal work
connected with the foreclosures.  She says she paid $650 in
attorney's fees in November 2009 and another $520 in attorney's
fees in December 2010 to reinstate her mortgage.

The class consists of all Missourians who reinstated their
mortgage loan and paid attorney's fees in foreclosure proceedings
for Missouri real estate from Nov. 7, 2006 to the present.
Ms. Fowler seeks actual damages and $3,000 in punitive damages for
each class member.  She estimates that both classes number in the
thousands.

A copy of the Complaint in Fowler v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11SL-CC04435 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/08/FowlervGMAC.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
          Fernando Bermudez, Esq.
          Bradley P. Schneider, Esq.
          GREEN JACOBSON, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-6800
          E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com
                  jacobson@stlouislaw.com
                  bermudez@stlouislaw.com
                  schneider@stlouislaw.com


HEALTHSPRING INC: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Tenn. & Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2011, HealthSpring, Inc., announced the execution
of an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and
among the Company, Cigna Corporation ("Cigna") and Cigna Magnolia
Corp. ("Merger Sub"), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Cigna, pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of
certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cigna (the "Proposed Merger"). If the
Proposed Merger is completed, the Company's stockholders (other
than holders of restricted shares of Company common stock and
persons who properly demand statutory appraisal of their shares)
will be entitled to receive $55.00 per share in cash (without
interest) for each share of the Company common stock that they
hold. Under the Merger Agreement, each option to purchase shares
of Company common stock will be converted into an option to
purchase shares of Cigna common stock, and each outstanding award
of restricted shares of Company common stock will be converted
into an award of restricted shares of Cigna common stock.

The Company is aware of four purported class action lawsuits
related to the Proposed Merger that were filed in late October
against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
each of its directors, and Cigna. Two of the lawsuits were filed
in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee and two
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaints are
substantially similar and allege, among other things, (i) breach
of fiduciary duty, (ii) that the Proposed Merger is the product of
a flawed process, and (iii) that the consideration to be paid to
the Company's stockholders in the Proposed Merger is unfair and
inadequate. The complaints further allege that Cigna aided and
abetted the actions of the Company's officers and directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders.
Among other relief, the complaints seek an injunction preventing
completion of the Proposed Merger. The Company believes that these
lawsuits are without merit and plans to defend them vigorously.
There can be no assurance that additional lawsuits arising out of
or relating to the Proposed Merger will not be filed in the
future. If additional similar lawsuits are filed or the pleadings
are amended, the Company does not intend to announce the filing of
any similar suits or amendments unless they contain allegations
that are substantially distinct from those made in the pending
actions, according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues to Defend "Frankhouser" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by Fankhouser and Goddard, according to Hugoton
Royalty Trust's October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas
wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.  The plaintiffs allege that XTO
Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the
royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June
2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies
owed for additional time.  XTO Energy removed the case to federal
district court in Oklahoma City.  In April 2010, new counsel and
representative parties, Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to
intervene and prosecute the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v.
XTO Energy Inc.  This motion was granted on July 13, 2010.  The
new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment.  On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class.
XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that it has
strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend
its position.

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

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws
of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered
into on Dec. 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and
NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues to Defend "Roderick" Suit in Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, according
to Hugoton Royalty Trust's October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.
The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.  The plaintiffs have
filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and
Oklahoma wells not part of matter subject to a lawsuit filed by
Fankhouser and Goddard against XTO.  After filing the motion to
certify, but prior to the class certification hearing, plaintiff
filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma portion of the case so it
could be transferred and consolidated with a newly filed class
action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain v. XTO Energy Inc.  This
motion was granted.  The Roderick case now comprises only Kansas
wells not previously included in the Fankhouser matter.  XTO
Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy
has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously
defend its position.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company vs. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma.  XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.  The
case expressly excludes those claims and wells being prosecuted in
the Fankhouser case.  The severed Roderick case claims related to
the Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain.
XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.

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

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws
of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered
into on Dec. 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and
NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


HUMANA INC: Trial in "Sacred Heart" Suit Set for October 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit filed by Sacred Heart Health
System, Inc., against Humana Inc.'s subsidiary is scheduled to
begin October 2012, according to Humana's October 31, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., was named as a
defendant in Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana
Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT
(the "Sacred Heart" Complaint), a purported class action lawsuit
filed on February 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida asserting contract and fraud claims
against Humana Military.  The Sacred Heart Complaint alleged,
among other things, that, Humana Military breached its network
agreements with a class of hospitals in six states, including the
seven named plaintiffs, that contracted for reimbursement of
outpatient services provided to beneficiaries of the DoD's TRICARE
health benefits program ("TRICARE").  The Complaint alleged that
Humana Military breached its network agreements when it failed to
reimburse the hospitals based on negotiated discounts for non-
surgical outpatient services performed on or after October 1,
1999, and instead reimbursed them based on published CHAMPUS
Maximum Allowable Charges (so-called "CMAC rates").  Humana
Military denied that it breached the network agreements with the
hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these claims.  The
Complaint sought, among other things, the following relief for the
purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the alleged
breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs of the
litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief the
court deems just and proper.  Separate and apart from the class
relief, named plaintiff Sacred Heart Health System Inc. requested
damages and other relief for its individual claim against Humana
Military for fraud in the inducement to contract.  On
September 25, 2008, the district court certified a class
consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers in
TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with
Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to
CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of November 18, 1999, excluding
those network providers who contractually agreed with Humana
Military to submit any disputes with Humana Military to
arbitration.  On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the
district court's class certification order and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceeding.  On June 28, 2010,
the plaintiffs sought leave of the district court to amend their
complaint to join additional hospital plaintiffs.  Humana Military
filed its response to the motion on July 28, 2010.  The district
court granted the plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional
hospitals on September 24, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint claiming the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case because the allegations in the
complaint raise a substantial question under federal law.  The
amended complaint asserts no other material changes to the
allegations or relief sought by the plaintiffs.  Humana Military's
Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 30,
2010.  The Company is currently involved in discovery on this
matter, with trial currently scheduled for October 2012.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Dismissed From "Polyether Polyols" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as a
defendant in civil class action antitrust suits alleging that
between 1999 and 2004 the Company conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow
and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and
related systems ("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in
violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated
as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyol defendants
have been named as defendants in three civil antitrust suits
brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products
that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict
litigation. The relevant time frame for these cases is 1994 to
2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action cases."

The class action and the direct action cases have been
consolidated in the Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and
other pretrial matters. Discovery in the direct action cases is
ongoing and the Company does not anticipate a trial of the direct
action cases until 2013.

On May 26, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the class plaintiffs. Although the Company vigorously denies
any wrongdoing alleged in the litigation, the Company determined
to enter into the settlement to avoid the substantial burdens and
uncertainties inherent in complex business litigation.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company paid $11 million into
an escrow fund for the benefit of the class on June 27, 2011 after
the court preliminarily approved the settlement. The Company will
pay an additional $11 million in 2012 and a third $11 million
payment in 2013. In exchange for these payments, the Company has
received from the class a release and discharge of all claims
against the Company, as described in the settlement agreement.
Following a fairness hearing held September 27, 2011, the
settlement was approved by the court and the Company was dismissed
from the class lawsuit.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


HUNTSMAN CORP: April 2 Class Certification Hearing in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Two civil antitrust class action cases were filed May 5 and 17,
2006 in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Canada and Superior
Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, on behalf of
purported classes of Canadian direct and indirect purchasers of
MDI, TDI and polyether polyols. The class certification hearing is
scheduled for April 2, 2012, according to Huntsman Corporation's
November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Calif. Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Kansas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action case filed February 15, 2002 by
purchasers in California of products containing rubber and
urethane chemicals and pending in Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco is stayed pending resolution of the Kansas
multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in this matter make
similar claims against the defendants as the class plaintiffs in
the Kansas multidistrict litigation, according to Huntsman
Corporation's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Huntsman Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as a
defendant in civil class action antitrust suits alleging that
between 1999 and 2004 the Company conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow
and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and
related systems ("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in
violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated
as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Certification Hearing Set for August 16
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as a
defendant in two purported class action civil antitrust suits
alleging that the Company and its co-defendants and other co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in
the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The cases
were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland and a consolidated complaint was
filed on April 12, 2010. The other defendants named in this matter
are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc.,
Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium
Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). A class certification
hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2012 and trial is set to begin
September 9, 2013. Discovery is ongoing, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


J.B. HUNT: Proceedings in Calif. Drivers' Class Suit Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., is a defendant in certain
class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.
Further proceedings have been stayed in these matters pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in a case unrelated to the
Company's involving similar issues.  The Company said it cannot
reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits.

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


KADANT INC: Awaits OK of Settlement in Suit vs. Composites Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving a
class action lawsuit filed by purchasers of allegedly defective
composites decking building products manufactured by the Company's
subsidiary, according to the Company's October 27, 2011 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 24, 2011, Kadant Inc., its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary, Kadant Composites LLC, and other co-defendants entered
into an agreement to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit to
be filed in Connecticut by purchasers of allegedly defective
composites decking building products manufactured by Composites
between April 2002 and October 2003.  The Connecticut class action
lawsuit was subsequently filed in Superior Court, Judicial
District of Middlesex, Docket No. MMX-CV-11-6006274-S on
October 25, 2011, and contains allegations substantially similar
to those contained in a class action originally filed in
Massachusetts federal district court in 2007 and later dismissed,
and in several state class actions that had been voluntarily
withdrawn pending the outcome of negotiations with the plaintiff
class representatives.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to provide to
settlement class members, who had previously not received any
compensation in cash or in kind, reimbursement at $1.00 per linear
board foot or a voucher to purchase replacement GeoDeck board
material at a discounted price of $.60 per linear board foot.  The
settlement class members must file a proof of claim, including
among other materials, documentation of original purchase and
proof of degradation.  If the total of all approved claims under
the settlement exceed $5.0 million, the claims will be pro-rated.
In addition, the Company also agreed to pay incentives to the
plaintiffs' class representatives not to exceed $75,000 in the
aggregate.  The Company has also agreed to pay the costs of
providing notice to the plaintiff class and not to oppose an
application by counsel for the plaintiffs for reimbursement of up
to $635,000 of their fees and expenses.

In connection with the settlement, the Company and the other co-
defendants did not admit any wrongdoing, any violation of any
statute or law, or the truth of any claims or allegations of the
plaintiffs.  Despite the Company's belief that the claims asserted
by the plaintiffs were untrue, the Company entered into the
settlement because it believes it was in the best interest of its
stockholders to fully and finally resolve litigation on this
matter and to avoid further legal expense and inconvenience and
eliminate the distraction of this litigation.

In connection with the filing of the proposed settlement, the
Company incurred a charge of $1.2 million (reported in loss from
discontinued operation) in the third quarter of 2011.  As of the
end of the third quarter, the Company has accrued approximately
$2.6 million for the payment of claims under the settlement.  If
the actual claims submitted and approved under the settlement
agreement exceed the amount of the reserve, the Company will
reflect the amount of the additional claims paid in the results of
the discontinued operation in future periods, up to the cap of
$5.0 million.  The Company also accrued $0.7 million as of the end
of the third quarter of 2011 for the payment of the plaintiffs'
legal fees and incentives to representatives of the class, as
agreed in the settlement agreement.

The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex, and
the Company said there is no assurance that it will be approved in
its present form or at all.  If approved, members of the class who
do not "opt out" of the settlement will be barred from bringing a
warranty claim against any of the defendants for the allegedly
defective composites material that was the subject of the
settlement.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale
in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems segment
develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global
papermaking and paper recycling industries.


KFORCE INC: Expects to Pay $2.5MM Calif. Settlement by Year End
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. is expecting to pay $2.5 million to settle a class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
November 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

As disclosed in its previous filings with the SEC, the Company was
a defendant in a California class action lawsuit alleging
misclassification of California Account Managers and seeking
unspecified damages. The tentative settlement referred to in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010 was approved by the Court during the three
months ended June 30, 2011 in the amount of $2,526, which has been
recorded within accounts payable and other accrued liabilities in
the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.
The settlement is expected to be paid during the year ended
December 31, 2011.

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

Kforce Inc. and subsidiaries provide professional staffing
services and technology, finance and accounting, health and life
sciences and government solutions.


MASTERCARD INC: Continues to File Dismissals of Currency Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International, together with Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa
International Corp., are defendants in a state court lawsuit in
California. The lawsuit alleges that MasterCard and Visa
wrongfully imposed an asserted one percent currency conversion
"fee" on every credit card transaction by U.S. MasterCard and Visa
cardholders involving the purchase of goods or services in a
foreign country, and that such alleged "fee" is unlawful. This
action, titled Schwartz v. Visa Int'l Corp., et al. (the "Schwartz
action"), was brought in the Superior Court of California in
February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the general public.
MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are also defendants in a
number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other
things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted
one percent currency conversion "fee." Pursuant to an order of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints
have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 (the "MDL action") before
Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In July 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related
matters, as well as the Schwartz matter. Pursuant to the
settlement agreements, MasterCard paid approximately $72 million
to be used for the defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL
action and approximately $13 million to settle the Schwartz
matter. In November 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement
agreements. A number of appeals of the final settlement approval
were filed. All the appeals of the approval have now been
withdrawn and the settlement is now final. With regard to other
state court currency conversion actions, MasterCard has reached
agreements with the plaintiffs for a total of approximately $4
million, which has been accrued. Settlement agreements have been
executed with plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida,
Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota, Illinois
and Missouri actions. Now that all appeals of the final approval
of the MDL settlement action are extinguished, MasterCard and the
plaintiffs in the state actions have or are in the process of
filing dismissals of the actions with prejudice, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.


MASTERCARD INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over ATM Rule Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Inc.'s time to respond to the multiple ATM Non-
Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints is currently running,
according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

On October 12, 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a proposed class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate.  Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and
Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules
that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM
surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's
respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge
charged for transactions over other networks accepted at the same
ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.  MasterCard's time in which to respond to the complaint
is currently running.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services.  The claims
in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM
operators' complaint, although this complaint seeks damages on
behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM
fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and
monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have
sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of
suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified
their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be
in the tens of millions of dollars.  MasterCard's time in which to
respond to the complaint is currently running.

At this time, and at this early stage of the cases, it is not
possible to determine the outcome of, or, estimate the liability
related to, the cases and no provision for losses has been
provided in connection with them.


MASTERCARD INC: Appeals in New Mexico & Calif. Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of complaints against MasterCard, Inc.,
in New Mexico and California remain pending, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Commencing in October 1996, several class action suits were
brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard
International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of
the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. Those
suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that
MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a similar Visa rule),
which required merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for
payment every validly presented MasterCard card, constituted an
illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied
acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards. In June
2003, MasterCard International signed a settlement agreement to
settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which
the Court approved in December 2003. In January 2005, the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the District
Court's approval of the settlement agreement thus making it final.
In July 2009, MasterCard International entered into an agreement
with the plaintiffs to prepay MasterCard International's remaining
payment obligations under the settlement agreement at a discount.
In August 2009, the court entered a final order approving the
prepayment agreement. The agreement became final pursuant to its
terms in September 2009 as there were no appeals of the court's
approval, and the prepayment was subsequently made in September
2009.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought
in nineteen different states and the District of Columbia alleging
state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law
claims against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers. The claims in these actions largely
mirror the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and
assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount
fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of
higher prices on goods and services sold. MasterCard has been
successful in dismissing cases in seventeen of the jurisdictions
as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their
complaints. However, there are outstanding cases in New Mexico and
California. In June 2010, the court issued an order granting
MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico
action. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of that
decision and briefing on the appeal has been completed. With
respect to the California state actions, and as discussed above
under "Department of Justice Antitrust Litigation and Related
Private Litigations," in September 2009, the parties to the
California state court actions executed a settlement agreement
which required a payment by MasterCard of $6 million, subject to
approval by the California state court. In August 2010, the court
executed an order granting final approval of the settlement,
subsequent to which MasterCard made the payment required by the
settlement agreement. Some objectors filed appeals of the
settlement approval order and briefing on the appeals is
completed.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of or
estimate the liability related to, the remaining consumer cases
and no provision for losses has been provided in connection with
them. The consumer class actions are not covered by the terms of
the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.


MASTERCARD INC: Sept. 12 Trial Date Set in Interchange Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A September 12, 2012, trial date has been set in the class action
lawsuit filed by merchants against MasterCard, Inc., relating to
its interchange fees, according to the Company's November 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In June 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. In addition, the
complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and
bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Since
the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately fifty
similar complaints (the majority of which are styled as class
actions, although a few complaints are on behalf of individual
merchant plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against
MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in
federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut. In October 2005, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of
pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720. In April 2006, the group of
purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint. Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class
Action Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of
the individual merchants are generally brought under both Section
1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which
prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry. Specifically, the complaints
contain some or all of the following claims: (1) that MasterCard's
and Visa's setting of interchange fees (for both credit and off-
line debit transactions) violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act;
(2) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various
rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-steering
rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) that
MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the acceptance of
premium credit cards to standard credit cards constitutes an
unlawful tying arrangement; and (4) that MasterCard and Visa have
unlawfully tied and bundled transaction fees. In addition to the
claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these
complaints contain certain unfair competition law claims under
state law based upon the same conduct described above. These
interchange-related litigations seek treble damages, as well as
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. In June 2006, MasterCard
answered the complaint and moved to dismiss or, alternatively,
moved to strike the pre-2004 damage claims that were contained in
the First Amended Class Action Complaint and moved to dismiss the
Section 2 claims that were brought in the individual merchant
complaints. In January 2008, the district court dismissed the
plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage claims. In May 2008, the court denied
MasterCard's motion to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization
claims. Fact discovery has been proceeding and was generally
completed by November 2008. Briefs have been submitted on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' class certification motion in November
2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion.

In January 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. The allegations and claims in this
complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action
complaint described above although plaintiffs have added
additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks alleging, among
other things, that the networks and banks have continued to fix
interchange fees following each network's initial public offering.
In March 2009, MasterCard and the other defendants in the action
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the claims
in the complaint. The parties have fully briefed the motion and
the court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009. The
parties are awaiting decisions on the motions.

In July 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public
offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and
certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and
its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1)
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2) violate
Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly constitute an
unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3) constitute a
fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are allegedly
attempting to release without adequate consideration from the
member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member banks for
MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these interchange-related
litigations and in other antitrust litigations pending against it.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and
unwinding the IPO. In September 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss
all of the claims contained in the supplemental complaint. In
November 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety
with leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2009, the
class plaintiffs repled their complaint directed at MasterCard's
IPO by filing a First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint.
The causes of action in the complaint generally mirror those in
the plaintiffs' original IPO-related complaint although the
plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations
based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case. The class
plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In
March 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The parties
have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court heard oral
argument on the motion in November 2009. The parties are awaiting
a decision on the motion. In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and
individual plaintiffs served confidential expert reports detailing
the plaintiffs' theories of liability and alleging damages in the
tens of billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert
reports in December 2009 rebutting the plaintiffs' assertions both
with respect to liability and damages. In February 2011, both the
defendants and the plaintiffs served a number of dispositive
motions seeking summary judgment on all or portions of the claims
in the complaints. Briefing on these motions was completed in July
2011. Oral argument on these motions is scheduled to occur on
November 2, 2011. The court has scheduled a trial date of
September 12, 2012. The trial date is subject to further delay
based upon the timing of any rulings on the outstanding motions by
the parties and any objections or appeals of those decisions along
with other factors.

On February 7, 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing
and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of member banks.  The agreements provide
for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which
MasterCard, the Visa parties and the member banks may incur,
jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or
settlement of one or all of the cases in the interchange merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the member banks and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12%
of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only MasterCard and the member banks with
respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would
pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

MasterCard and the other defendants have been participating in
separate court-recommended mediation sessions with the individual
merchant plaintiffs (who account for less than 5% of the purchase
volume of the class plaintiffs) and the class plaintiffs. Although
substantial progress has been made in the mediation with the
individual merchant plaintiffs, there has not been similar
progress with the class plaintiffs. However, based upon
developments in the mediation process, MasterCard believes that it
is reasonably possible that it could incur a loss and estimates
its share of a lower end of a negotiated settlement could result
in a loss of $500 million for the entire matter. This estimate
does not reflect the class plaintiffs' settlement demands, which
remain unacceptable given the cash component is significantly
higher than MasterCard's estimate of a reasonably possible loss
and the terms include unacceptable changes to MasterCard's
business practices.

The estimate does not represent an estimate of a lower end of a
reasonably possible loss if the parties to the matter litigate
rather than settle the matter, in which case MasterCard cannot
estimate the potential liability, if any. MasterCard's estimate
involves significant judgment and may change from time to time
given the varying stages of the proceedings, progress in
settlement negotiations and the numerous unresolved issues
(including decisions by the court concerning class certification
and the scope of many of the claims), and the uncertainty of the
potential outcomes of these issues. As such, subsequent progress
in negotiations and/or decisions by the court could increase or
decrease the estimate.

At this time, MasterCard is unable to estimate a probable loss for
the matter and accordingly has not accrued for any loss.


MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend Canadian Interchange Fee Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits in Canada related to its interchange fees, according to
the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB")
filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to
strike down certain MasterCard rules related to interchange fees,
including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. Also in
December 2010, MasterCard learned that a purported class action
lawsuit had been commenced against it in Quebec on behalf of
Canadian merchants and consumers. That suit essentially repeats
the allegations and arguments of the CCB application to the
Canadian Competition Tribunal and seeks compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
March 2011, a second purported class action lawsuit was commenced
in British Columbia against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large
Canadian banks, and in May 2011 a third purported class action
lawsuit was commenced in Ontario against the same defendants.
These suits allege that MasterCard, Visa and the banks have
engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to increase or maintain the
fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions and that
MasterCard's and Visa's rules force merchants to accept all
MasterCard and Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from
charging more for payments with MasterCard and Visa premium cards.
The second suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the third suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
second and third suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified
amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs.
If the CCB's challenges and/or the class action law suits were
ultimately successful, such negative decisions could have a
significant adverse impact on the revenues of MasterCard's
Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada
and, in the case of the private lawsuits, could result in
substantial damage awards.


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Settles Class Action Over Kombucha
-------------------------------------------------------
Ray Latif, writing for BevNET.com, reports that the uproar over
fermentation of Kombucha products might have ended last summer,
but apparently the lawsuits dragged on for another year: within
the past month, both Millennium Products and Honest Tea have
settled class-action lawsuits claiming that the two companies
misled consumers about the alcohol content in their Kombucha
beverages.

For both Millennium Products, the makers of GT's Kombucha and GT
Synergy, and Honest Tea, the settlements will resolve two separate
lawsuits alleging that each company falsely stated its Kombucha
beverages would contain "a trace amount of alcohol (less than
0.5%)."  Both companies settled the lawsuits to avoid further
litigation.

Millennium -- among several other kombucha beverage manufacturers
-- was forced to pull its products from shelves in June of 2010
after investigators in Maine, found that its beverages contained
four to five times the 0.5% cap, a threshold regulated by the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).  The company was
forced to submit proof that its products were below 0.5% alcohol-
by-volume and soon reformulated and reintroduced its line of
drinks.

As part of its settlement, Millennium Products denies that it
intentionally misled consumers about the alcohol content in its
beverages, but the company agreed to provide full cash refunds to
class members of the lawsuit who purchased the beverages in the
U.S. between September 8, 2006 and September 1, 2010 and can
provide proof of purchase that shows exactly when and where the
beverages were purchased.  Those who cannot provide proof of
purchase can file a claim to receive up to $6 in coupons toward
the purchase of "Enlightened GT's Kombucha" or "Enlightened
Synergy" beverages.

The financial terms of the settlement have not been disclosed and
calls to GT Dave, the owner of Millennium Products, have not been
returned.

Though Honest Tea also denies allegations of wrongdoing in its
lawsuit, the company will issue a cash refund and a $1 coupon for
each dollar paid for the now-defunct Honest Kombucha to
individuals who file a claim and have a valid proof of purchase
for between October 29, 2006 and October 3, 2011.  Consumers who
do not have proof of purchase will receive a $1 coupon for each $1
paid.  Though Honest Tea no longer carries a line of kombucha
drinks, the coupons can be used for any other Honest Tea products.
A maximum of $7 in coupons will be issued to any individual.
Honest Tea is now owned by the Coca-Cola Co., Inc.

In an interview with BevNET, Seth Goldman, the president and TeaEO
of Honest Tea, expressed frustration and disappointment regarding
the lawsuit.  Nevertheless, Mr. Goldman explained that -- for
Honest Tea -- the settlement was a "containment of risk."  He said
that the company took into consideration the number of people that
would submit a claim for a refund and based on that number, the
final cost to Honest Tea would be open-ended.

Despite reformulating its kombucha drinks in August 2010, Honest
Tea found that the level of alcohol in Honest Kombucha -- when
left at room temperature -- increased beyond 0.5%.  Citing the
difficulty in maintaining legal alcohol levels, Honest Tea
discontinued the line in December 2010 and Mr. Goldman said it was
unlikely that Honest Tea would be getting back into the Kombucha
category any time soon.

"Maybe things will change in the future, but we don't have too
much of an appetite [for Kombucha]," Mr. Goldman said.

Millennium Products, on the other hand, has thrived on the
popularity of GT Kombucha and GT Synergy.  The company remains the
undisputed category leader though Kombucha products as whole are
selling at a torrid pace.  As reported in a recent cover story in
Beverage Spectrum, sales of Kombucha drinks grew by 28% in 2010
and are projected to jump 60% this year in the natural channel,
according to data provided by SPINS.  Total sales in the category
are estimated to reach $200 million this year and hit $500 million
by 2015.


MF GLOBAL: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP on Nov. 8 disclosed that the firm commenced a
class action lawsuit on November 7, 2011, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of MF Global Holdings Ltd. between May 19, 2011 and
October 28, 2011.  The action is against the Company and certain
of the Company's officers for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

MF Global was one of the world's leading brokers in markets for
commodities and listed derivatives.  The Company provided access
to more than seventy exchanges globally, and was a leader by
volume on many of the world's largest derivatives exchanges.  MF
Global was founded in 1981 and is based in New York, New York.

The complaint alleges that beginning on May 19, 2011, the Company,
along with certain officers at MF Global, issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements to investors designed
to deceive the market and cause shares of MF Global to trade at
artificially high prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that officials at the Company
misrepresented and failed to disclose to investors material
adverse facts that: (1) MF Global was suffering from serious
liquidity pressures based on its exposure to the European debt
crisis; (2) MF Global's internal controls were highly deficient
and were unable to clearly segregate clients' funds; and (3) that
disclosure of MF Global's true risk profile would inevitably lead
to a credit downgrade.

On October 24, 2011, Moody's Investors Service slashed MF Global's
credit rating to Baa3, or near junk status, citing the Company's
significant risk exposure to European debt.  Following this
downgrade, officials at the Company attempted to calm the market
by falsely claiming that MF Global's exposure to European debt was
"sound and well-structured," and that Former Jersey Governor,
John Corzine, had bolstered the Company's risk-management
practices when he became MF Global's Chief Executive Officer in
March 2010.  Then, on October 27, 2011, Moody's and Fitch Ratings
downgraded the Company's credit rating to junk status, and shares
of MF Global closed for the day at a record low of just $1.43 per
share.  Finally, on October 31, 2011, MF Global filed for Chapter
11 protection and the New York Stock Exchange suspended trading of
the Company's shares and moved to de-list the Company altogether.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired MF Global stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later January 2, 2012.  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.


NORTHERN TRUST: Awaits Court Approval of Deal Dismissing Ill. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
stipulation dismissing a class action complaint filed in Illinois
by participants of an incentive plan, according to the Company's
Oct. 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On January 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in a putative
class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Corporation and others.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, The Northern Trust Company, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its
members, the Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee
and its members, and certain other officers, including the present
and former Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation,
purportedly on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of The
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
October 19, 2007 to January 14, 2009.  The complaint purports to
allege breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA related to
the Corporation's stock being offered as an investment alternative
for participants in the Plan and seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.  On September 14, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation voluntarily dismissing the complaint; that stipulation
is without prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative
class other than the four named plaintiffs, whose claims were
released and discharged.

Northern Trust Corporation operates as the holding company for The
Northern Trust Company that provides a range of banking and
financial services to large and mid-sized corporations and
financial institutions in the United States and internationally.

Northern Trust Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend itself from a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to
the Company's Oct. 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Corporation and three of
its present or former officers, including the present and former
Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007 to October 20, 2009.  The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.  At this stage of the suit, it is not possible
for management to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.

Northern Trust Corporation operates as the holding company for The
Northern Trust Company that provides a range of banking and
financial services to large and mid-sized corporations and
financial institutions in the United States and internationally.

Northern Trust Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend "Sotoudeh" Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in California by a former employee,
Nick Sotoudeh, according to the Company's October 31, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 27, 2011.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh,
a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company.  The lawsuit was
filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa.
On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former
employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods and termination compensation and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court might find just and proper.
The Company believes it and its subsidiary have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  The Company said there
can be no assurance, however, that it will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved.

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


PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Employees' Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in a Florida court by three former
employees, according to the Company's October 31, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 27, 2011.

On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Denarius Lewis,
Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of a subsidiary of
the Company.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective, and class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
Court might find just and proper.  The Company believes it and the
other defendants have meritorious defenses to each of the claims
in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend
the lawsuit.  There can be no assurance, however, that the Company
will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations in the period in
which the lawsuit is resolved, the Company said.

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


PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend "Carter" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in California by David Carter and
Nikole Benavides, according to the Company's October 31, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 27, 2011.

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a
former employee of a subsidiary of the Company, and Nikole
Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's
franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior
Court, County of San Bernardino.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and
termination compensation and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.  The Company
believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to
each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to
vigorously defend the claims asserted against the Company and its
subsidiary.  The Company said there can be no assurance, however,
that it will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the
lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position and results of operations in the
period in which the lawsuit is resolved.


PONIARD PHARMA: Awaits Approval of MOA Dismissing Calif. Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a
memorandum of agreement dismissing two putative class actions
filed in a California state court, 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 June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, against
Poniard, its board of directors and Allozyne.  The action, titled
Aronheim v. Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Case Number:
CGC-11-512033) alleges in summary that, in connection with the
proposed merger with Allozyne, the members of the Poniard board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly
conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair sale
price, by purportedly making inadequate disclosures about the
merger, and by purportedly engineering the proposed merger to
provide them with improper personal benefits.  The action also
alleges that Poniard and Allozyne aided and abetted the Poniard
board members' purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaration that the suit
can be maintained as a class action, a declaration that the Merger
Agreement was entered into in breach of the Poniard board members'
fiduciary duties, rescission of the Merger Agreement, an
injunction against the proposed merger, a directive that the
Poniard board members exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of Poniard's
shareholders, the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of
the plaintiff and the class upon any benefits improperly received
by the Poniard board members as a result of their purportedly
wrongful conduct and fees and costs.  Poniard and its board of
directors believe that the claims are without merit

On August 24, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, against
Poniard and its board of directors, as well as against Poniard's
Chief Executive Officer, its President and Chief Medical Officer,
its Interim Chief Financial Officer, its Senior Vice President of
Corporate Development, and its Vice President, Legal and Corporate
Secretary.  The action, titled Wing Sze Wu v. Robert S. Basso, et
al. (Case Number: CGC-11-513652), alleges in summary that the
members of the Poniard board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to pay purportedly excessive compensation and
benefits to Poniard's senior management, that members of Poniard's
senior management were allegedly unjustly enriched when they
received those executive compensation and benefits, that Poniard's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by conducting a
purportedly unfair sale process in connection with the proposed
transaction with Allozyne and agreeing to an allegedly unfair and
dilutive sale price and a transaction that included improper "deal
protection measures," and by providing allegedly materially
inadequate disclosures and material disclosure omissions to
Poniard's shareholders.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
a declaration that the suit can be maintained as a class action,
an injunction against the proposed merger, rescission of the
proposed merger to the extent it occurs before final judgment in
the lawsuit or rescissory damages, a directive that the defendants
account for all damages allegedly caused by them and account for
all profits and special benefits obtained as a result of their
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties, and for costs,
attorneys fees, expenses and such other relief as the court deems
just and proper.  Poniard, its board of directors and Poniard's
management believe that the claims are without merit.

The parties to both the Aronheim case and the Wu case have signed
a Memorandum of Understanding dated October 19, 2011, providing
for the settlement of both cases.  The settlement is subject to
final settlement documentation, court approval, and the closing of
the merger transaction, among other things.  The settlement would
provide for dismissal of both the Aronheim and Wu cases, for
certain additional disclosures, and for payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.  The Company has estimated a possible range of
loss and has accrued a loss contingency equal to the minimum value
of this range, or $215,000.  There can be no assurance that the
settlement will become effective.  If the settlement does not
become effective, the Aronheim and Wu cases will continue.  If
that should happen, the Company would vigorously defend the
lawsuits.  An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in
that event cannot be made at this time.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Denial Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of class certification in a lawsuit
involving Principal Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of
Principal Financial Group, Inc., remains pending, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life. Principal Life's motion to transfer venue
was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District
of Iowa. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal
Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing
services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately
disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that
Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds
that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly
failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans. Plaintiff further alleged that these acts
constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA. Plaintiff sought
to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life
was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and
retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds. On August 27,
2008, the plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied.
On June 13, 2011, the court entered a consent judgment resolving
the claims of the plaintiff. On July 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal related to the issue of the denial of class
certification. Principal Life continues to aggressively defend the
lawsuit.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cruise and Mullaney Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by Cruise and
Mullaney in New York, according to the Company's November 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal
Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC
(the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits alleged the
Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S.
Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best interests of
investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze" on September
26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to honor withdrawal
requests as sufficient liquidity became available. Plaintiffs
allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary duties under
ERISA. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified
ERISA plans and the participants of those plans that invested in
PUSPSA between September 26, 2008, and the present that have
suffered losses caused by the queue. The two lawsuits, as well as
two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have
been consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S.
Property Account Litigation. On April 22, 2010, an order was
entered granting the motion made by the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants
for change of venue to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa. Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint adding five new plaintiffs on November 22,
2010, and the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court denied the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants' motion to dismiss on May 17, 2011. The Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.


RENWICK SPENCE: May 2013 Trial Set for Sexual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Branswell, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that a
class action launched against convicted sex offender Renwick
Spence and the English Montreal School Board is to go to trial in
May 2013 -- seven years after the motion to institute the lawsuit
was first filed in court.

Twenty days have been set aside for the trial.

Mr. Spence, 82, a former Montreal West High School teacher,
pleaded guilty to abusing eight male students between 1967 and
1981.  A judge sentenced him in 2007 to 30 months in prison,
calling the offenses -- oral sex, masturbation and fondling --
serious.

Mr. Spence received full parole in 2009 but still faces the
pending lawsuit.

The representative plaintiff in the class action, who is referred
to by the pseudonym Sebastian, said he was encouraged that a trial
date has been set, although he would have preferred something
sooner.

"What a long period of time to wait," another victim in the
criminal case told The Gazette.

Quebec Superior Court authorized the class action in 2007.  It
alleges that Mr. Spence abused his position of authority, inviting
students to his cottage in Morin Heights and abusing them
physically, sexually and/or mentally.

It also claims the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal --
which was absorbed into the EMSB -- was told about Mr. Spence's
actions by students who considered themselves his victims but
didn't address their complaints.

The EMSB denied those allegations in its statement of defense.
Mr. Spence stated in his defense that his actions, to his
knowledge, weren't known to school administrators or the school
board.

During a parole hearing in 2008, Mr. Spence acknowledged there
could have been more victims than the eight former students who
complained to police.

About 15 alleged victims have come forward to join the class
action, according to Lauzon Belanger Lesperance, the law firm
representing them, which contends there are many more.

The court offered the possibility in June of going ahead with
judicial mediation if the parties were willing to participate,
said Eric Lafreniere, a lawyer with the firm.

The firm is open to it, he said, while "so far the school board
has not shared (its) intention in that regard."

The EMSB declined to comment because the case is before the
courts.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Aesthera Continues to Defend Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthera Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit in Connecticut relating to unsolicited fax
advertisements, Solta Medical, Inc., which acquired Aesthera on
February 26, 2010, disclosed in its November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On December 4, 2009, Aesthera Corporation was served with a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging that Aesthera caused unsolicited
fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiffs in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, and Connecticut
state law. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a
class, and it alleges that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax
advertisements to be sent from August 1, 2006 through the present.
Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the TCPA and Connecticut
state law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an
injunction to prevent any future violations. In May 2010, Aesthera
reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class-
wide basis by consenting to certification of a settlement class to
receive payment out of a settlement fund. On November 5, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for certification of a
settlement class and for preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement. Discovery in this action has been stayed since May 6,
2010, and on December 9, 2010, the Court extended that stay until
March 9, 2011 so as to permit itself "an opportunity to review and
rule upon [plaintiffs'] pending motion." On April 15, 2011, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motion without prejudice on the grounds
that the proposed means of giving notice to the class -- i.e., via
fax -- was not adequate. The Court directed the plaintiffs to
revise their motion to provide for notice to the class via United
States mail. The Court further directed that the cost of this
notice should be borne by Aesthera without reduction to the amount
of the settlement fund. On August 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed unopposed motion for certification of a settlement class
and for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement. This
renewed motion provides for notice to the class via United States
mail. Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (see 28 U.S.C.
Section 1715), on August 30, 2011, Aesthera gave the Attorney
General of the United States and each of the state attorneys
general notice of the proposed settlement. On September 29, 2011,
the Court entered an Order stating that it would grant plaintiffs'
renewed motion upon submission of a revised notice to the class
providing that the claim form will be a fillable PDF that will
enable perspective class members to complete and submit the form
electronically. On October 12, 2011, the parties jointly submitted
revised long-form and summary versions of the Notice to the Class
providing that the Proof of Claim will be a fillable PDF that will
enable perspective class members, if they so choose, to complete
and submit the form electronically without need to print it. On
October 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs' renewed Motion to
Certify Class for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. If the
process does not result in approval of a settlement, then the
Company anticipates that the parties will engage in discovery and
that Aesthera will vigorously oppose certification of a class. The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this action
and intend to defend the action vigorously if the proposed
settlement is not approved by the Court. The Company does not
believe the final disposition of this action will have a material
effect on its financial statements and future cash flows.


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend South Carolina Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Company continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit pending before a South Carolina federal court,
according to the Company's November 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

On July 7, 2008, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court for South Carolina by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated. The lawsuit is a class action on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2007 and September 18, 2007, except officers and
directors of the Company. The complaint, as amended, alleges that
the Company issued press releases and made public statements
during the class period that were materially false and misleading.
The complaint also names certain Company officers as defendants
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the suit.

Headquartered in Hartsville, South Carolina, Sonoco Products
Company produces packaging for various industries and global
brands.


STEWART INFORMATION: Awaits Outcome of RESPA Claims Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation is awaiting the outcome
of the appeals from the dismissal of RESPA claims pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company, its parent Stewart Title Insurance Company,
Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, several other unaffiliated
title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service
Association, Inc. (TIRSA). The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by
collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York
through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service
organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. To date, 78 such complaints have been filed, each
of which names the Company and/or one or more of its affiliates as
a defendant (and have been consolidated in the mentioned states),
of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of July 8, 2011, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed). The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal in Ohio to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the dismissals
in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The dismissals in New York
and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on
October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' petitions for review of those decisions. The
plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Circuit the dismissal of
the RESPA claims by the court in New York. Although the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously
defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that
the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.

Stewart Title Insurance Company and subsidiaries, including
Stewart Information Services Corporation, provide title insurance
and related services to the real estate and mortgage industries.


STURM ROGER: Consolidated Suit in Connecticut Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action is still ongoing in Connecticut,
according to Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.'s November 2, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 1, 2011.

On August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint
captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et
al. pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007.  On
October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint
captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.  On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two
actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.  On January 11,
2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010.  The
defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss on
April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18, 2010.
Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19,
2010.  Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010.  On
February 4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion
to dismiss in part and denying it in part.  The matter is ongoing.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is engaged in the design,
manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers.


TARGET: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson has
granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a
case against Target over its generic version of the cold medicine
"Airborne."

Judge Gleeson had previously certified the class for anyone who
purchased Immunity Supplement from Target within the U.S. from
Dec. 31, 2003, to the date the class notice is published.

Lead plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn, represented by the class action
team of Paul Weiss of Chicago and Richard Burke of St. Louis and
Kevin Hoerner of Belleville, sued in 2008, claiming Target's cold
medicine product did not work as promised.

According to the settlement proposal approved last month, class
counsel's fee and expense application has to be filed at least
seven days before the fairness hearing, currently scheduled on
Jan. 17, 2012.

At the hearing, Judge Gleeson will decide if the settlement is
reasonable and whether to approve class counsel's fee and expense
application.

A motion in support of preliminary approval filed Aug. 31,
indicates that class members who return a valid, completed claim
form will receive up to two vouchers for $5 off any $20 purchase
at any Target store.

The motion also indicated that class attorneys will seek fees and
costs not exceeding $80,000.

Target, represented by Robert Bassett of Williams, Venker &
Sanders of Belleville, denies liability.

"Neither this order, the settlement agreement, its terms, any of
the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be
construed as an admission by the defendants of the truth or of any
of the allegations in the complaint, or any liability, fault, or
wrongdoing . . .," states the preliminary approval order.

Objectors may appear at the fairness hearing if a written
objection is filed with the court and delivered to plaintiff and
defense counsel and postmarked no later than 45 days after the
class notice is first published. Objections posted after that are
invalid.

Class member who don't object as outlined by the court waive their
right from making any objection to the adequacy of the settlement
or the award of attorney's fees and expenses to the settlement
class counsel, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

Rust Consulting, Inc. of Minnesota would serve as settlement
administrator.


TAYLOR BEAN: WARN Act Settlement Initially Approved
---------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. received
preliminary approval from the bankruptcy court last week for
settlement of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of workers who
didn't receive the required 60-day warning of mass firings.
On behalf of almost 3,000 workers who lost their jobs, a
$21.4 million claim was filed.  The settlement requires a
creditors' trust to set aside $15 million for payment to former
workers as a priority claim arising during the Chapter 11 case.

According to the report, the plaintiffs' lawyers believe the
settlement represents 70% recovery for the priority portion of the
claim.  Notice of the proposed settlement will be given to workers
included in the class.  The bankruptcy judge will hold another
hearing on Dec. 2 for final approval.

                         About Taylor Bean

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. grew from a small Ocala-
based mortgage broker to become one of the largest mortgage
bankers in the United States.  In 2009, Taylor Bean was the
country's third largest direct-endorsement lender of FHA-insured
loans of the largest wholesale mortgage lenders and issuer of
mortgage backed securities.  It also managed a combined mortgage
servicing portfolio of approximately $80 billion.  The company
employed more that 2,000 people in offices located throughout the
United States.

Taylor Bean sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case
No. 09-07047) on Aug. 24, 2009.  Taylor Bean filed the Chapter 11
petition three weeks after federal investigators searched its
offices.  The day following the search, the Federal Housing
Administration, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibited the company
from issuing new mortgages and terminated servicing rights.
Taylor Bean estimated more than $1 billion in both assets and
liabilities in its bankruptcy petition

Lee Farkas, the former chairman, was sentenced in June to 30 years
in federal prison after being convicted on 14 counts of conspiracy
and bank, wire and securities fraud in what prosecutors said was a
$3 billion scheme involving fake mortgage assets.

Jeffrey W. Kelly, Esq., and J. David Dantzler, Jr., Esq., at
Troutman Sanders LLP, in Atlanta, Ga., and Russel M. Blain, Esq.,
and Edward J. Peterson, III, Esq., at Stichter, Riedel, Blain &
Prosser, PA, in Tampa, Fla., represent the Debtors.  Paul Steven
Singerman, Esq., and Arthur J. Spector, Esq., at Berger Singerman
PA, in Miami, Fla., represent the Committee.  BMC Group, Inc.,
serves as the claims and noticing agent.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Issued $112.5MM Notes Under Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (the "Federal Court") entered an order
approving the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Stipulation Agreement") entered into in December 2010 between
Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., and a group of five public pension
funds appointed by the Federal Court to act as lead plaintiffs in
the consolidated securities class action Eastwood Enterprises,
L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No.8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ.  As
required by the Stipulation Agreement, in May 2011 the Company
delivered to the escrow agent on behalf of the class, a $35.0
million non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory note that
was payable and due in full on July 31, 2011. This amount was paid
in full on July 28, 2011.

The Stipulation Agreement also required, among other things, that
the Company issue to the class tradable unsecured subordinated
notes having an aggregate par value of $112.5 million, with a
fixed coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December 31, 2016.  In
June 2011, an individual stockholder filed a notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the
"Appeals Court") which was dismissed by the Appeals Court on
August 17, 2011.  This appeal delayed the time for issuance of the
$112.5 million in notes, which the Company issued on September 30,
2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


XCEL ENERGY: Continues to Defend 2nd C02 Class Suit in Miss.
------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from a second
purported class action lawsuit alleging harmful effects of the
Company's CO2 emissions to the environment.

On May 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit against more
than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in the 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 Xcel Energy Inc., SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and
NSP-Minnesota.  The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is
unknown.  It is believed that this lawsuit is without merit.  The
Company said no accrual has been recorded for this matter.

No updates were reported on 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.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Xcel Energy Inc. distributes
electricity to 3.4 million customers and natural gas to 1.9
million in eight states; Colorado and Minnesota account for the
majority of its customers.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal from the
dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit in the Southern
District of Indiana, according to the Company's November 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
et al., naming the Company and two of its executive officers as
defendants. The complaint related to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008. The complaint alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly
failing to disclose developments relating to the Company's
orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover,
Ohio and the Durom Cup. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. On
December 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same
time period.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on February 23, 2009. On December 1, 2009,
the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, without
prejudice. On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the consolidated complaint. On January 28, 2011,
the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
the consolidated complaint and dismissed the case. On February 25,
2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court heard oral
argument in the appeal on October 18, 2011 but has not yet ruled.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and the
Company and the individual defendants intend to defend it
vigorously.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and employees as defendants. The
complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer
stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock
purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants
failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate
information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing
their retirement savings in Zimmer stock. The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
October 5, 2007 through September 2, 2008. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 23, 2009. The
motion to dismiss is pending with the court. On June 12, 2009, the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
transferring the Dewald case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Fund case. The Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit, and the Company and the individual defendants
intend to defend it vigorously.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Crane Co. Surge to 58,572 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against Crane Co. rose to 58,572 as of
Sept. 30, 2011, compared with 56,403 as of June 30, 2011,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 24, 2011
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded
1,088 new claims filed, 283 settlements, 849 dismissals, and 2,213
MARDOC claims.  During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the
Company recorded 981 new claims, 337 settlements, 554 dismissals,
and 65,441 pending claims.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 5,032
new claims, 1,127 settlements, 6,363 dismissals, 956 MARDOC
claims, and 64,839 pending claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2011, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 58,572 pending claims as of Sept. 30, 2011, about 20,900
claims were pending in New York, about 10,000 claims were pending
in Texas, about 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and
about 5,300 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in
which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims
that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements.  To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters.  The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, about two years after the
adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after
the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

The second payment, in the amount of US$20,000, was made in June
2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los
Angeles on April 21, 2009.

Cumulatively through Sept. 30, 2011, the Company has resolved --
by settlement or dismissal -- about 84,000 claims, not including
the MARDOC claims.  The related settlement cost incurred by the
Company and its insurance carriers is about US$300 million, for an
average settlement cost per resolved claim of US$4,000.

The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years
ended Dec. 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was US$7,036, US$4,781 and
US$4,186 respectively.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argument in O'Neil Appeal Slated for This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that argument in the Patrick O'Neil asbestos claim
is scheduled for Nov. 9, 2011.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of
which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal and is currently the subject of further appellate
proceedings before the Supreme Court of California, which accepted
review of the matter.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still Pursues Appeal in Chief Brewer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is still pursuing an appeal in the Chief Brewer
asbestos-related lawsuit.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles.  The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodard's Appeal in Case v. Crane Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that plaintiffs in the Dennis Woodard asbestos
claim have appealed an Aug. 25, 2011 ruling to the Supreme Court
of California.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for 0.5% of plaintiffs' damages of
US$16.93 million; however, based on California court rules
regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the
Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, plus costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the
court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment
was entered in favor of the Company.

The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated
Aug. 25, 2011.  The plaintiffs have appealed that ruling to the
Supreme Court of California.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeals in Bell, Nelson Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that all appeals in the Larry Bell and James Nelson
asbestos-related claims are still pending.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pa., state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

On Feb. 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of US$200,000 against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of US$4 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of US10,000 being assessed against the Company, only, in
Nelson.

All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs have
taken timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.  Those
appeals are pending.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules v. Crane Co. in Ronald Dummitt Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that on Aug. 17, 2011, a New York City state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 99% share of a US$32
million verdict on the Ronald Dummitt claim.

The Company has filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the
verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the
Company argues are excessive under New York appellate case law
governing awards for non-economic losses.  The Court held oral
argument on these motions on Oct. 18, 2011, and a written decision
is expected to be issued.

The Company anticipates that it will likely appeal any judgment
that may be entered on the verdict.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $82.9MM Costs for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled US$82.9 million
for the nine-month periods ended Sept. 30, 2011, and US$75.7
million for the nine-months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The gross asbestos-related settlement and defense costs incurred
(before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company
totaled US$56.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011,
and US$52 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 5, 2011)

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Posts $536.55MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$536,554,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$619,666,000
as of Dec. 31, 2011, according to a Company report on Form 8-K,
filed on Oct. 24, 2011, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$570,768,000 as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 5, 2011)

The current asbestos liability was US$100 million as of both
Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$156,810,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$180,689,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The current asbestos insurance receivable was US$33 million as of
both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$23,612,000 during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$16,167,000 during the three months ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$59,223,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$43,652,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products.  Founded in 1855, the
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries' Sept. 30 Liability at $42.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc.'s asbestos liability amounted to US$42.5
million at Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$43.5 million at
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Oct. 25, 2011 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The asbestos-related insurance receivable related to the liability
as well as claims for past payments was US$22.5 million at
Sept. 30, 2011 and US$23.8 at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$43 million at June 30,
2011. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

The Company, like many other industrial companies, has been named
as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in
the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos.  The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the
Company owns or formerly owned, or from products that it formerly
manufactured for specialized applications.

Most of these cases involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many
as several hundred.  Historically, most of the closed asbestos
claims against the Company have been dismissed without any
indemnity payment by it.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010,
the Company recorded 100 closed claims, 100 open claims, and 8,000
pending claims.

Woodland Park, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company focused on developing,
manufacturing and selling value-added products.  Its products
serve a diverse range of end markets, including aerospace
composites, structural adhesives, automotive and industrial
coatings, electronics, inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $9.3MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs
were US$9.3 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$3.8 million during the three months ended
Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
on Oct. 25, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs were US$24 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$24.1
million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Asbestos-related contingencies were US$1.7 billion as of Sept. 30,
2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  Long-term asbestos-related insurance was
US$500 million as of Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to
resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Jan. 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming
the Plan.  The confirmation order must next be affirmed by the
U.S. District Court.  On June 28-29, 2011, the District Court
heard oral arguments on affirmation and appeals to the
confirmation order.

The timing of the Company's emergence from Chapter 11 will depend
on affirmation of the Plan by the District Court and the
satisfaction or waiver of the other conditions set forth in the
Plan, including the resolution of any further appeals.  The
Company is preparing to consummate the Plan as quickly as
practicable.  The Plan sets forth how all pre-petition claims and
demands against the Company will be resolved.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other
products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of
plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a
wide range of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 650 Active Cases at Sept. 30 Open v. U.S. Steel
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2011, was a
defendant in about 650 active asbestos cases involving about 3,190
plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Oct. 25, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 550 active
cases involving about 3,090 plaintiffs.

The Company, as of June 30, 2011, was a defendant in about 620
active asbestos cases involving about 3,160 plaintiffs. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 5, 2011)

About 2,575, or about 81%, of these plaintiff claims are currently
pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers
of plaintiffs.  Most of the claims filed in 2008 through 2011
involve individual or small groups of claimants.

During the period ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded 100
claims dismissed, settled, and resolved and 200 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$6 million during the
period.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation produces and
sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular
products, in North America and Central Europe.  Operations in
North America also include transportation services (railroad and
barge operations) and real estate operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff's Appeal Dismissed in Noreen Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal in a case involving asbestos styled Elwood J.
Noreen, Claimant-Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Judges Newman, Schall, and Moore entered judgment in Case No.
2011-7097 on July 22, 2011.

This was an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims.  Elwood J. Noreen appealed the final decision of the
Veterans Court, which affirmed the decision of the Board of
Veterans Appeals denying his claim for benefits for a lung
disorder due to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Noreen served on active duty with the U.S. Navy from January
1951 through November 1954.  In October 2003, he filed a claim
with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
for "a lung condition secondary to asbestos disclosure."  After
the RO denied the claim, Mr. Noreen appealed to the Board.

In May 2007, the Board denied the claim for lack of service
connection.  Central to the Board's ruling was its determination
that the opinion of Dr. Frank Maldonado, the VA's specialist, was
more probative than that of Dr. M. Lahiri, Mr. Noreen's private
treating physician.

Dr. Lahiri stated that there was evidence of pleural fibrosis in
Mr. Noreen's lungs and that Mr. Noreen's exposure to asbestos
during his active service more probably than not was the cause of
his lung condition.  Dr. Maldonado, however, concluded that there
was no evidence that Mr. Noreen had any asbestos-related lung
condition.  The Board credited Dr. Maldonado's opinion over Dr.
Lahiri's because it found the former to be more comprehensive and
to be based upon a more detailed review of the evidence.

Mr. Noreen appealed the Board's decision to the Veterans Court.
As noted, the court affirmed the Board's decision; this appeal
followed.  Mr. Noreen's appeal was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Affirms Ruling in Oakley Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Nov. 4,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Clifford E. Oakley's claims for VA benefits for a head injury,
including headaches, and for intestinal cancer, a stomach
disorder, and a respiratory disorder, all claimed as secondary to
asbestos exposure.

The case is styled Clifford E. Oakley, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Lawrence B. Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 10-0260 on
July 20, 2011.

Mr. Oakley served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from December
1950 to November 1954.  His service medical records revealed that,
in November 1952, he sought treatment for acute gastritis from an
unknown cause.  In October 1954, he fell down a ladder aboard a
ship and sustained a small linear fracture of the temporal bone of
the skull.

A day later, Mr. Oakley was discharged from the hospital because
he was "entirely asymptomatic" and "up and about without
complaints or objective evidence of focal damage to the brain."
His remaining service medical records did not reveal any
complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for intestinal or respiratory
disorders.  Upon separation from the military, Mr. Oakley's lungs,
abdomen, head, and nerves were all evaluated as normal and a chest
x-ray was negative.

In August 2007, Mr. Oakley filed a claim for VA benefits for a
head injury, including headaches, and for intestinal cancer, a
stomach disorder, and a respiratory disorder, all claimed as
secondary to asbestos exposure.  In January 2008, he attended a VA
medical examination. T he examiner noted that Mr. Oakley reported
that he sustained a head injury in service and that he used to
experience headaches that "have primarily gone away and are no
longer a concern."

In March 2008, a VA regional office denied Mr. Oakley's claims for
benefits for a head injury, including headaches, and for
intestinal cancer, a stomach disorder, and a respiratory disorder,
all claimed as secondary to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Oakley filed a timely Notice of Disagreement with that
decision and subsequently submitted an undated letter from a
private physician, Dr. Toby Free, opining that it was "as likely
as not that [Mr. Oakley's] cancers of the stomach and colon are
due, in large part if not entirely, to his exposure to asbestos in
the form of asbestos wrapped steam piping while serving aboard the
USS Sicily in the Navy, during the Korean War."

In November 2008, Mr. Oakley underwent another VA medical
examination.  After reviewing his claims file and medical history,
the examiner noted that Mr. Oakley had a cecal adenocarcinoma
removed in 2001 with subsequent chemotherapy, but that he had no
recurrences and did not appear to have any colon cancer at that
time.

The examiner reviewed current medical literature and stated that
he "could not find any documentation that states that asbestos
exposure causes colon cancer."  Consequently, the examiner opined
that "there appears to be no reasons why [Mr. Oakley's] colon
cancer would be caused by asbestos exposure because this does not
appear to be a specific causative factor or risk factor."

In November 2009, the Board issued the decision currently on
appeal, which denied entitlement to benefits for a head injury,
including headaches, and for intestinal cancer, a stomach
disorder, and a respiratory disorder, all claimed as secondary to
asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Various Rulings Issued in Abney Lawsuit in Ky.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, at
Louisville, issued various rulings in a case involving asbestos
styled Everett Abney, Plaintiff v. Ladonna Thompson et al.,
Defendants.

District Judge John G. Heyburn entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 3:10CV-606-H on July 19, 2011.

Currently on parole, Everett Abney filed this action while
incarcerated at the Kentucky State Reformatory.  In the complaint,
he sued Kentucky Department of Corrections Commissioner LaDonna
Thompson; KSR Internal Affairs Lt. Carlos Schantz; KSR Chief
Engineer Robert Gimmell; KSR Engineer Terry Anderson; KSR "CUA 2"
Glenn Dotson; KSR Engineering Supervisor Marvin Brunner; and KSR
Warden Cookie Crews.

In the amended complaint, Mr. Abney additionally sued F.W. Keeman,
M.D., the "Head of Medical, Correct-Care" at KSR and KSR Nurse
Practitioner Roy Washington.  He sued all Defendants in their
individual and official capacities.

In the complaint and amended complaint, Mr. Abney asserted four
claims.  First, he alleges that while working at KSR he was
repeatedly subjected to verbal and physical sexual harassment by
Defendant Brunner.  Mr. Abney alleged that he presented his claims
to Defendant Dotson, who failed to report the sexual threats to
Defendant Schantz of Internal Affairs, and who had a "negative
temper toward providing assistance."

Mr. Abney advised that he, himself, nevertheless, complained to
Defendant Schantz, who apparently conducted an investigation but
failed to question any of the inmates or staff who witnessed the
touching and persistent verbal harassment by Defendant Brunner
against Mr. Abney.

Second, Mr. Abney contended that "I was threatened with
segregation after bringing [the sexual harassment] situation to
internal affairs" and that "[f]or a period of six months I was
continually harassed and threatened with segregation time, loss of
good time and other denied privileges."

Third, Mr. Abney alleged that he was exposed to and required to
work without proper safety equipment in an area containing friable
asbestos and lead paint dust and fumes.

Mr. Abney filed a grievance regarding his being denied the proper
safety equipment.  On the Warden's Review, Defendant Crews
indicated that she advised Defendant Chief Engineer "Gimmel to
ensure that proper safety equipment is worn by both inmates and
staff when working in or around potentially dangerous materials."

On appeal, Defendant Commissioner Thompson advised, "Warden Crews
had directed that inmates and staff working around potential
dangerous materials be provided the proper safety equipment.  In
addition, you have provided no evidence that the work material is
in fact hazardous to your health. Therefore, it appears that the
institution is addressing your concerns."  Mr. Abney claimed that
the proper safety equipment was never provided.

Finally, Mr. Abney, in the amended complaint, sued Defendants
Washington and Dr. Keeman for denial of proper medical treatment
under the Eighth Amendment.  He alleges that requests to be
properly screened for exposure to known carcinogens and to be
examined for resulting symptoms, which worsened, were denied.

It was ordered that all official-capacity claims for monetary
damages against all Defendants are dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary
damages from those immune from such.

The claims for injunctive relief against all Defendants were
dismissed as moot.  All claims against Defendants Thompson,
Schantz, and Dotson were dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. District Court Issues Decision in Munson
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, issued
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled James Munson,
Plaintiff v. Donald Hulick, et al., Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Frazier entered judgment in Case No. 10-cv-
52-JPG-PMF on June 29, 2011.

James Munson sought damages and injunctive relief, claiming that
he was and is being deprived of his Eighth Amendment right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment.  In particular, he
described exposure to a number of adverse conditions while
confined in the North cell-house at Menard Correctional Center.

This motion challenged two subparts of Mr. Munson's Eighth
Amendment claim, namely allegations that he was exposed to (1)
mold and (2) asbestos.  Arguments were heard and facts pertinent
to the issue were developed at a hearing held on June 28, 2011.

It is recommended that the motion for partial summary judgment be
denied.

Kevin L. Fritz, Esq., Rebecca Murphy Christensen, Esq., Shontaia
J. Riley, Esq., of Lashly & Baer PC, in St. Louis, Mo.,
represented Plaintiff.

Melissa A. Jennings, Office of the Attorney General, Springfield,
Ill., represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inactive Quaker Unit Still Faces Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation says that an inactive subsidiary,
which was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing
asbestos primarily on an installed basis, is among the defendants
in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 25, 2011
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received.  To date, the overwhelming majority of these
claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been
no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US$7.7 million (excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain
of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the
Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.
These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted.  The subsidiary challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary.

In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005
and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$15 million and US$20
million, respectively.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
were structured to be received over a four-year period with annual
installments of US$5 million, the final installment of which was
received in the first quarter of 2010.

The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be
used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the
subsidiary's asbestos litigation.  During the third quarter of
2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier
entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which
the carrier will pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred
by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos
bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1,
2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose
to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the
application of the policy limits.

The Company also believes that, if the coverage issues under the
primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely
to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds are used, the
subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state
guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the
subsidiary's primary insurers.  Nevertheless, liabilities in
respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to
the subsidiary.

Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation provides
process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and technical
expertise to industries including steel, aluminum, automotive,
mining, aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and construction
materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated has been named as a defendant,
along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which the Company made in limited
amounts between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s.

In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages.  To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or
settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

On Dec. 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged
asbestos-related injury.  The total amount of the award and
related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was about US$5.8
million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the
fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing
product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake
business.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Carlisle Companies Incorporated makes
products including roofing materials, specialty wheels and tires,
foodservice equipment, and wire and cable assemblies for aerospace
and industrial clients.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Subject to Erica P. John Fund Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company continues to be subject to class action
litigation involving asbestos, of which the Erica P. John Fund is
the lead plaintiff.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an
investigation in connection with the Company's change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures.

In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were
filed against the Company.  Several of those lawsuits also named
as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers
and directors.  The class action cases were later consolidated,
and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled
Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed
and served upon the Company in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was
styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al.  AMSF has changed its name to Erica P.
John Fund, Inc.  The Company settled with the SEC in the second
quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the Company's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that it failed to timely
disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
Erica P. John Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file
a third consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file
its motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that
motion in August 2005.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting Erica P. John Fund to re-plead some of those
claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

In April 2006, Erica P. John Fund filed its fourth amended
consolidated complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing
was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court
ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants
other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The court
ordered that the case proceed against the Company and its CEO.

In September 2007, Erica P. John Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company's response was filed in November
2007.  The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order
Nov. 3, 2008 denying Erica P. John Fund's motion for class
certification.  Erica P. John Fund appealed the district court's
order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, Erica P. John Fund filed a writ of certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court.  In early January 2011, the Supreme Court
granted Erica P. John Fund's writ of certiorari and accepted the
appeal.  The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued
its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that
Erica P. John Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to
obtain class certification.

The Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss
causation requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth
Circuit for further consideration of the Company's other arguments
for denying class certification.  The Fifth Circuit returned the
case to the District Court for further action.

As of Sept. 30, 2011, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to this matter.

Houston-based Halliburton Company operates under two divisions:
the Completion and Production segment and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Asbestos Reserves Total $67MM at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's asbestos-related reserves totaled US$67 million
as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$81 million as of Dec. 31,
2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Oct. 26, 2011, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Of the total reserves as of Sept. 30, 2011, about US$9 million was
current and about US$58 million was long-term.  Of the reserves as
of Dec. 31, 2010, about US$9 million was current and about US$72
million was long-term.

Casualty reserves represent accruals for personal injury,
occupational injury and asbestos claims.  During 2010, the Company
increased its self-insured retention amount for these claims from
US$25 million to US$50 million per injury for claims occurring on
or after June 1, 2010.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service and the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Group Posts $38MM A&E Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s nine month results in 2011
include realized gains of US$14 million and a special charge of
US$38 million resulting from a second quarter reserve
strengthening related to the Company's asbestos and other
environmental exposures, according to a Company press release
dated Oct. 25, 2011.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based American Financial Group, Inc. is engaged
primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on
specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of
traditional fixed and indexed annuities and a variety of
supplemental insurance products, such as Medicare Supplement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $5MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded an asbestos litigation charge of
US$5 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$6 million during the three months ended Sept. 30,
2010, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 26, 2011.

The Company recorded an asbestos litigation charge of US$15
million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011.  The Company
recorded an asbestos litigation credit of US$41 million during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation was named in numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos and, on
April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization.  The
Company, with other relevant parties, proposed a Plan of
Reorganization of PCC in 2003, which has not yet been confirmed.
Under this PCC Plan, the Company would contribute certain payments
and assets.

Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated specializes in glass and
ceramics.  The Company creates and makes keystone components that
enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile
emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Posts $34MM Payments at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments during the
third quarter of 2011 were US$34 million, compared to US$37
million in the third quarter of 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 26, 2011 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's asbestos-related cash payments during the second
quarter of 2011 were US$35 million, compared to US$43 million in
the second quarter of 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12,
2011)

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first nine months of 2011
were about 13% lower than the same period last year.  About 5,300
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims remained pending as of
Sept. 30, 2011, down from about 5,900 at the end of 2010.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$170 million as of
Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  Long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$204 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared
with US$306 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container
manufacturer and preferred partner for many of the world's leading
food and beverage brands.  The Company employs more than 24,000
people at 81 plants in 21 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Decide on Kurns v. Railroad Friction
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., the U.S.
Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not state regulations
will supersede federal regulations for locomotive safety,
Asbestos.com reports.

Gloria Kurns, daughter of a long-time railroad worker who died of
mesothelioma that traced to asbestos exposure from railroad parts,
is suing Railroad Friction Products Corp., the company that
manufactured the asbestos-containing product that caused her
father's death.

Lower courts decided that manufacturer's claims are correct in
that railroad companies should not be responsible if federal
regulations do not provide guidance on locomotive safety.  Now the
Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hold up this decision.
The issue stems from the fact that federal laws involving
locomotive safety do not mention asbestos, so Railroad Friction
Products believes that they should not be responsible.  State
laws, on the other hand, indicate that the company holds some of
the blame.

The initial decision from the lower courts was made on Sept. 9,
2010 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In 2011,
Ms. Kurns held firm in her stance to continue fighting, she moved
her case to the docket of the Supreme Court.

Because railroad safety has been shared among the federal
government and the state, lines of how regulation requirements
should be split come to a junction with this case.

According to the advocacy group Alliance for Justice, the Federal
Railway Safety Act allows states to enforce their regulations on
railroad safety until federal law is passed that concerns the same
issue.

As the case is still being decided, many businesses, employees and
consumers in the asbestos industry may be paying close attention.
If Ms. Kurns wins the claim, a precedent may be set that requires
businesses to be subjected to more stringent safety regulations at
the state and federal level.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court holds up the lower court's
decision, critics and labor advocates believe that employees may
suffer by losing out on holding employers accountable for safety
standards.  Alliance for Justice holds a strong position on what
will occur if the high court upholds the decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma-Related Deaths Rising in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos.Net reports that the number of citizens who died of
mesothelioma is higher than reported a year ago, up from 63 to 82,
according to a health study of Taconite Workers in Iron Range,
Minn.

Researchers found the additional nine cases by checking death
records of former residents who moved out of state.

The University of Minnesota is responsible for the study, which
started in 2008 and will wrap up as early as mid-2012.  So far,
results indicate that the rate at which residents have contracted
mesothelioma is much higher than it should be.

Exactly how Iron Range residents have been exposed to asbestos is
a mystery.  Speculation includes one theory that workers handled
asbestos in certain products then carried it home.

Another theory is that processing taconite rock (a low-concentrate
iron ore that has been mined and processed in Minnesota since the
1950s) releases asbestos fibers from within the rock into the air.
The mystery is what provoked the US$4.9 million health study,
which was approved by state lawmakers in 2008.

Researchers have collected data on people who worked in mining as
far back as the 1920s.  So far, the study shows that out of about
46,000 taconite workers who ever worked in the industry, 1,681
developed some sort of lung cancer.

Currently, the results from more than 2,000 air samples taken over
the last two years at Minnesota's six operating taconite plants
show safe dust levels.

Asbestos levels are extremely low, according to the study.  Silica
concentration was found to be higher than acceptable in some
cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mold Solutions to Help Clean Up Homes in Fresno
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mold Solutions Inc has teamed up with a financial partner to offer
loans to homeowners in the Fresno, Calif., area for mold and
asbestos removal work, according to a Mold Solutions press release
dated Oct. 27, 2011.

When a homeowner has roof or plumbing leak that causes water or
mold damage in their home, they will usually file a claim with
their insurance company.

Many times they find that the loss is not covered due to the cause
of the leak, especially in the case of mold damage.  Very few
insurance companies offer mold coverage and if they do, the
coverage does not normally cover all of the costs.  The typical
cost for professional mold or asbestos removal work in residential
homes is between US$2,000 to US$3,500.

In this tough economic economy, many homeowners have a hard time
coming up with the money needed for the work.  Safe and
professional mold removal involves containing the area with an
airtight containment made of plastic sheeting and removing the
asbestos containing or mold contaminated materials under negative
air pressure to prevent the release of mold spores or asbestos
fibers into other areas of the home.

Some homeowners will do the work themselves to save money or hire
a handyman or regular contractor to do the work, not realizing the
dangers that asbestos fibers and mold spores can cause to their
health.

The company, Mold Solutions, uses trained and certified
professional technicians for all of their work and is the only
local mold and asbestos removal company where the owner of the
company starts each and every job.

Mold Solutions office is located in Madera, Calif., just outside
of Fresno on the Hwy 41 Business Route, and their service area
includes Central California, from Bakersfield to Modesto.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Defence Ministry Settles Case With Devereux
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Devereux, a 65-year-old woman from Stoke, England, has won a
landmark Ministry of Defence asbestos-related payout, the Plymouth
Herald reports.

Mrs. Devereux used to scrub the overalls of her father, brother
and husband who all worked in Devonport Dockyard.  She was
diagnosed with asbestosis two years ago.

Experts believe Mrs. Devereux could be the first person in the
country to receive compensation due to developing the chronic lung
condition second-hand.

Mrs. Devereux believes she was exposed to asbestos as a child - as
her father Bob Gill worked in the dockyard as a welder.  In her
early 20s, when her mother became ill, she washed the clothes of
her dad, boiler-maker brother Terry and husband, who was a fitter.

Mrs. Devereux was diagnosed in April 2009 after undergoing a chest
x-ray due to a persistent cough.  The condition has spread 10 per
cent since then.

Specialist industrial disease lawyer Andrew Stinchcombe, of
Thrings, said he is currently dealing with 50 asbestos-related
compensation cases in Plymouth.  He said Mrs. Devereux has
received a "substantial" pay-out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Being Dumped at Moreland City Locations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos is being dumped in Melbourne, Australia (particularly
Moreland City) suburbs near schools and parks by rogue companies
and dodgy "do-it-yourself" renovators, the Herald Sun reports.

There were 55 cases of asbestos dumpers last financial year to the
Environmental Protection Agency but Melbourne councils said the
problem was growing, with hundreds of reports from locals.  Some
councils said children were playing in piles of dumped rubbish
that contained asbestos.

Moreland City Council was a hot spot, with 52 cases of illegally
dumped asbestos in the past nine months, 12 occurring in
Brunswick.  The cleanup bill has cost taxpayers AU$140,000 so far.

Dumpings have also been reported to councils in Hume, Knox,
Whittlesea and the Yarra Ranges.  Melbourne Asbestos Removal owner
Martin Campi warned the Dandenongs had become a dumping ground and
said rising tip costs were to blame.  Experts warned older city
suburbs were where most of the asbestos originates.

The EPA Illegal Dumping Strikeforce has issued up to 50 notices
directly related to illegal disposal activities and has several
prosecutions in the pipeline against large-scale industrial
asbestos dumpers.

EPA fines can range from AU$1,200 for an individual, AU$6,000 for
a company and up to AU$250,000 if the matter goes to court.

The EPA's Victorian asbestos dumping hot spots: Wellington
Shire 6; Hume City 5; Bass Coast 4; Greater Dandenong 4; Latrobe
City 4; Mount Alexander Shire 4; Geelong 3.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific's Bid Denied in Larson Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division,
denied Georgia-Pacific LLC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
of the Post-Exposure CPSC Ban on Certain Asbestos-Containing Joint
Compounds, in an asbestos case filed by Dianna K. Larson and
Merlin B. Larson.

The case is styled Dianna K. Larson and Merlin B. Larson,
Plaintiffs v. Bondex International, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Ted Stewart entered judgment in Case No. 2:08-CV-
333 TS on July 19, 2011.

Georgia-Pacific contended that such evidence was irrelevant,
highly prejudicial, and inadmissible hearsay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Ruling in Aidnik Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, issued
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Jeff Aidnik, Plaintiff
v. Shawn O'Conner, et al., Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman entered judgment in Case
No. 2:09-cv-2271 WBS KJN (TEMP) P on July 15, 2011.

Mr. Aidnik is a state prisoner.  He alleged that defendants
O'Conner and Russell were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Aidnik's
safety by exposing him to asbestos and lead during a demolition
work project at the California Medical Facility, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.

Mr. Russell was served with process and has filed a motion to
dismiss, alleging: (1) Mr. Aidnik failed to exhaust the prison
grievance process before filing this lawsuit; (2) workers'
compensation is Mr. Aidnik's exclusive remedy; (3) Mr. Aidnik's
tort claim was untimely, barring any negligence claim; and (4) Mr.
Aidnik's request for injunctive relief is moot.

Mr. Aidnik alleged that in March 2006, he was instructed to assist
in the demolition of the photo lab at the California Medical
Facility (CMF) in Vacaville, Calif.  About one week into the
project, a supervisor told the workers onsite, including Mr.
Aiknik, to stop.  Mr. Aidnik never resumed work at the demolition
site.  Instead, "an outside company" specializing in asbestos
removal took over the project.

Mr. Aidnik alleged that, despite the work stoppage, he did not
learn of the presence of asbestos and lead at the demolition site
until he received an occupational injury or illness report on May
26, 2006.  He also stated that on Aug. 16, 2006, the California
Compensation Insurance Fund sent him a notice that "liability for
this injury had been accepted."

Mr. Aidnik alleges that defendant Russell, a secondary supervisor
in plant operations with the CDCR, knew about the presence of
asbestos throughout CMF.  He averred that Russell was aware that
the same "outside company" had removed asbestos from the gym
restroom at CMF only a week before the demolition of the photo lab
began.

Mr. Aidnik alleged Russell acted with deliberate indifference to a
serious risk to Mr. Aidnik's health when he allowed Mr. Aidnik "to
work and remove these deadly contaminates with no proper training
or safety gear."

The complaint states that as a direct result of Mr. Aidnik's
handling asbestos and lead, he suffers respiratory distress and
requires respiratory treatment four times a day.  He sought
injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive
damages.

Mr. Aidnik brought these same allegations against Mr. Russell in
this court.  In that case, the court dismissed without prejudice
Mr. Aidnik's claim that Mr. Russell was deliberately indifferent
to the safety risks posed by asbestos at the demolition work site
where Mr. Aidnik was assigned.  The court found that Mr. Aidnik
had failed to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to
allegations of asbestos exposure in March 2006.

Mr. Russell moved to dismiss on the ground that Mr. Aidnik did not
fully exhaust the grievance process.  Accordingly, it is
recommended that Mr. O'Conner be dismissed from this action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Court Issues Split Rulings in Fuller Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, issued split
rulings in an asbestos-related insurance case filed by H.B. Fuller
Company.

District Judge R. Tunheim entered judgment in Civil Action No.
09-2827 (JRT/JJG) on July 18, 2011.

Fuller brought this case against four insurance carriers, United
States Fire Insurance Company (US Fire), First State Insurance
Company (First State), Allstate Insurance Company as successor in
interest to Northbrook Insurance Company, and International
Insurance Company (Allstate) -- jointly, "Carriers" or
"defendants" -- seeking declaratory judgments against the Carriers
regarding coverage for asbestos claims.

Both parties moved for partial summary judgment on the allocation
of liability for the time period covered by other insurers all of
whom are now insolvent.  Because insurance coverage was available
during the relevant time period, the Court granted the Carriers'
motion for partial summary judgment, and denied Fuller's motion
for partial summary judgment.  The Court also declined to certify
a question to the Minnesota Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal Move Granted in St. Matthews Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, granted Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company's
motion to dismiss a case involving asbestos cleanup filed by the
St. Matthews United Methodist Church.

District Judge Nancy F. Atlas entered judgment in Civil Action No.
H-11-2036 on July 25, 2011.

St. Matthews' property was damaged during Hurricane Ike.
Philadelphia's records reflect that on Feb. 27, 2009, St. Matthews
submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss for US$94,906.59, which
Philadelphia paid.

On July 10, 2009, St. Matthews submitted a Supplemental Proof of
Loss in the amount of US$37,652.34, reflecting the additional cost
for replacing the roof rather than repairing it.  On July 14,
2009, Philadelphia issued payment to St. Matthews for the
additional amount.  St. Matthews demanded an appraisal as provided
for under the insurance policy.

The parties agreed upon an appraisal umpire, who issued an
appraisal award in St. Matthews' favor.  Philadelphia paid the
full amount of the appraisal award.  St. Matthews then demanded an
additional payment of about US$77,000.00, which Philadelphia did
not pay.

St. Matthews filed this lawsuit in Texas state court alleging
breach of contract and "statutory and common law bad faith."  St.
Matthews sought damages in the amount of US$454,887.00, plus
attorney's fees.  Philadelphia removed the case to federal court
and filed the pending Motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Ruling in Four Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
rulings in asbestos cases styled Lois Jean Conner, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants; James H.
Prange, et al., Plaintiffs v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al.,
Defendants; James W. Stone, et al., Plaintiffs v. Alfa Laval,
Inc., et al., Defendants; and Tina M. Willis, Plaintiff v. BW IP
International, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action Nos.
09-67099, 09-91848, 09-93726-File, and 09-91449 on July 22, 2011.

Lois Jean Conner, Jane Prange, James W. Stone, and Tina M. Willis
(Plaintiffs), whose respective cases have been consolidated as
part of the MDL-875 litigation, brought these asbestos products
liability cases against several defendants.

Plaintiffs' complaints all plead asbestos-related injuries
stemming from exposure to asbestos-containing products during
service with the U.S. Navy.  Like many of the cases pending in
this Court's MDL-875 docket arising from such exposure, the
allegations concerning where and how the injuries were sustained
are varied.  Some of the plaintiffs alleged exposure while aboard
Navy ships at sea while others emphasized exposure stemming from
work in Navy shipyards.

The defendant urged that summary judgment should be granted in
their favor.  Plaintiffs disagreed.

The Court concluded that the maritime jurisdiction test required
the Court to apply maritime law to those claims involving
plaintiffs who were sea-based Navy workers where the allegedly
defective product was produced for use on a vessel.

The motions for summary judgment in Conner, Prange, and Stone will
be granted to the extent they seek application of maritime law and
maritime law will be applied in resolving the other issues raised
in the summary judgment motions.

The motions for summary judgment in Willis will be denied inasmuch
as they ask the Court to apply maritime law and Willis will
therefore be resolved under applicable state law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. District Court Dismisses Thomas' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, dismissed
a case involving asbestos styled Frank Vincent Thomas, Plaintiff
v. John Cox, Gladyse Taylor, and Pat Quinn, Defendants.

District Judge Murphy entered judgment in Case No. 10-cv-997-GPM
on July 27, 2011.

Frank Vincent Thomas, an inmate in Dixon Correctional Center,
brought this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights,
based on incidents that occurred while he was housed at Vienna
Correctional Center.  He is serving a three year sentence for
burglary.

Soon after his burglary conviction, Mr. Thomas was transferred to
the Vienna Correctional Center on Nov. 17, 2010 and placed on the
second floor of Building 19.  He alleged that the section where he
was housed was a storage unit being used as living quarters, and
had numerous deficiencies which, along with the overcrowded
conditions, made it unsafe and unsanitary.  He also claims he
obtained documents showing that the building had been condemned.

Mr. Thomas' housing area had only two toilets for 90-100
prisoners, had no showers, was cold, and had standing water on the
floors.  It also had leaks in the bathroom ceiling where water
allegedly contaminated with lead paint, asbestos, urine, and waste
water from the upstairs showers leaked down onto Mr. Thomas and
others using the restroom.

On Dec. 1, 2010, Mr. Thomas was moved to the third floor of the
building, which apparently had similar problems as the second
floor.  In addition, he claimed the third floor, like the second
floor, had no forced air ventilation.

Mr. Thomas suffers from chronic Hepatitis C, stage 4 cirrhosis and
fibrosis of the liver, and a compromised immune system.  His liver
condition is terminal and he stated he has been given between six
and 24 months to live.  He claimed that the unsanitary conditions
placed his life at risk and caused him to feel ill.

On Dec. 3, 2010, Mr. Thomas was moved out of Building 19.  He was
later transferred out of Vienna Correctional Center.  He sought
compensatory and punitive damages; an order moving him out of
Building 19; a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to
repair and open the second restroom on the second floor, and
repair and clean the third floor of Building 19; and a permanent
injunction prohibiting Defendants from housing prisoners in
Building 19 until it is brought up to code.

The Court notes that as Mr. Thomas had already been moved to
another institution, his transfer request has become moot.

The Court ordered that Mr. Thomas' complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and thus dismissed the
complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.  Defendants Cox,
Taylor, and Quinn were dismissed from this action with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. District Court Issues Ruling in Bryan Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, issued
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Ronnie L. Bryant v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Docia L. Dalby entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 10-532-RET-DLD on May 19, 2011.

Ronnie L. Bryant, a Louisiana citizen, alleged that at various
times between 1973 and 2009, he was employed as a contract worker
at the facility owned and operated by Exxon Mobil in Baton Rouge,
La.  He further alleged that while working at the Exxon Mobil
facility, "he was occupationally exposed to unreasonably dangerous
amounts of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including benzene coke
dust, asbestos, and/or other deadly substances . . ., which were
manufactured, distributed and/or in the care, custody and control
of the premises owner, Exxon Mobil Corporation."

As a result of exposure to these toxic substances, Mr. Bryant
alleged that he contracted a toxic-related disease and/or cancer.

On July 12, 2010, Mr. Bryant sued Exxon Mobile Corporation, Donald
H. Daigle, Keith Baugher, and William L. Rainey in the 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.

Exxon Mobil is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place
of business in Texas.  Mr. Daigle, Mr. Baugher, and Mr. Rainey are
all alleged to be Louisiana citizens who were "Executive Officers"
of Exxon Mobil during some or all of Mr. Bryant's employment with
Exxon Mobil.

Exxon Mobil removed this matter based on diversity jurisdiction
alleging that non-diverse Executive Officer defendants were
improperly joined and that their citizenship should be disregarded
for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship.  Mr. Bryant
filed a motion to remand.

It is recommended that Mr. Bryant's motion to remand and the
imposition of fees and costs should be granted in part and denied
in part in that the motion to remand is granted and this matter
should be remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of
East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, and the motion for fees and
costs should be denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. Court Favors CSX Transportation in Gillon
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2011, West Virginia Supreme Court justices said that
Jimmie Gillon, a former CSX Transportation employee, cannot bring
forth claims of disease from asbestos exposure because of an
earlier settlement reached between parties, 12 WBOY reports.

Mr. Gillon initially brought claims against CSX under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act in Virginia for injuries resulting from
occupational asbestos exposure.

Parties settled the case in 1995 for US$12,000, and CSX maintained
that Mr. Gillon signed away his right to bring future claims
because the agreement specifically outlined cancer arising from
exposure to "all toxic particulate matter," the opinion states.

However, Mr. Gillon was diagnosed with lung cancer eight years
after signing the release, and brought another suit against CSX in
Harrison County Circuit Court.  He argued that he did not know
there was a possibility of developing the disease and also did not
know that asbestos exposure could cause it, the opinion states.

The case was later transferred to Kanawha County Circuit Court as
part of a mass litigation lawsuit.  However, CSX's motion for
summary judgment was granted in October 2010, finding that Mr.
Gillon had indeed given up the right to bring forth cancer claims
because of the 1995 agreement.

Mr. Gillon appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court saying
the judge should not have granted the motion for summary judgment
because the agreement did not free CSX from liability.  He argued
that the release did not bar his claims for several reasons.

Mr. Gillon's first reason stated discovery had not been conducted
to determine his intent when he signed the release and that he had
not been questioned about whether the risks were explained to him
at the time.  He also argued the US$12,000 settlement did not
prohibit claims of future death-causing illnesses.

The opinion states, "Petitioner argues that while the term
'cancer' is in the release, the term 'lung cancer' is not, which
should have been fatal to CSX's motion for summary judgment."

However, CSX argued that the release was unambiguous, and Mr.
Gillon should have known that he could not bring additional future
claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GAO States Bankruptcy Trust System Is "Broken"
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform press
release dated Oct. 19, 2011, Lisa A. Rickard, President of the
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, made a statement on the
release of Asbestos Injury Compensation: The Role and
Administration of Asbestos Trusts, a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Rickard said, "I commend Chairman Smith for commissioning this
report, which confirms that the asbestos trusts operate under a
shroud of secrecy and without judicial or federal government
oversight.

"It is becoming clear that rather than acting to prevent abusive
claims, the asbestos trusts are effectively encouraging fraud by
inhibiting claims information sharing between the trusts and the
tort system.  We hope that Congress's growing attention to this
important issue will ensure that the trusts operate in a manner
fair to asbestos victims and job-creating businesses, not
plaintiffs' lawyers and fraudulent claimants."

The GAO report explicitly acknowledges that the asbestos
bankruptcy trusts, which are established by bankrupt companies and
currently control over US$36 billion in assets, do not make
claimant filing information publicly available.  The report also
finds that 65 percent of trusts have implemented procedures that
block the information sharing necessary to prevent fraudulent
claims.

In addition, only three of the 11 trusts interviewed by GAO have
audited their claims, and only one has submitted medical evidence
for external review.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard, Construction Waste Dumped in Perthshire
----------------------------------------------------------------
In recent months, asbestos and other construction waste has been
illegally dumped on several occasions across Perthshire, Scotland,
in which the fly-tipping included sheet asbestos and appears to be
material discarded during the demolition of sheds, stv reports.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has appealed for
information after the illegal dumping in the area.  So far in
2011, Sepa found fly-tipping near Errol on Aug. 9, 2011, in
Balbeggie on Aug. 25, 2011 and near Coupar Angus on Oct. 10, 2011.

Brian Roxburgh, Sepa's unit manager in Perth, said, "Fly-tipping
is a blight on our landscape, and there is no excuse for it.  As
well as the environmental impact, it ends up costing the
landowners money to have it removed and dealt with appropriately,
which can end up being very expensive indeed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Stronger" Procedures in Place in NSW Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------
New procedures are in place to ensure there is no repeat of an
asbestos scare at the Gol Gol School, a southern New South Wales,
Australia, school earlier in 2011, ABC News reports.

Workers installing air conditioning at the school found asbestos
and parents were worried pupils were exposed to asbestos when they
returned from holidays.  A subsequent internal review found no
airborne or residual asbestos fibers in the school.

Carol McDiarmid says officials reviewed the report with parents.
She said, "We've gone back and refreshed all of our processes and
policies and I think now we have something much tighter that would
work for all schools across NSW, all public works across NSW, as
well as the advice we would be providing to contractors."

Ms. McDiarmid says human error and system failures were at fault
and the processes and procedures have now been tightened.  She
added, "It's been a steep learning curve for all involved but from
this particular incident has I think come a much stronger and
standardized procedure for the future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lewis Claim v. 17 Firms Filed in St. Clair Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ray and Bobbie Ruth Lewis of Illinois, on Oct. 17, 2011, filed
an asbestos lawsuit in St. Clair County Circuit Court against
17 defendant corporations, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

The Lewises are represented by Staci M. Yandle, Esq., of the Law
Offices of Staci M. Yandle in O'Fallon.  Simona A. Farrise, Esq.,
of Farrise Firm in Los Angeles will serve of counsel.

In their complaint, the Lewises allege the defendant companies
caused Mr. Lewis to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.  He worked as
a laborer in the U.S. Army from 1965 through 1968 and as a motor
and assembly line worker, welder, body shop worker and laborer at
General Motors from 1968 through 1999, according to the complaint.

Mr. Lewis also performed auto repair work from the 1960s through
the 1970s, the four-court complaint states.

In St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-584, the Lewises
seek a judgment of more than US$150,000 and punitive and exemplary
damages of more than US$50,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $4.4MM Liability, Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos liability and defense costs were
US$4,391,000 during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$2,202,000 during the three months ended Oct. 1,
2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on
Oct. 27, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Asbestos coverage litigation expense was US$3,086,000 during the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$2,339,000
during the three months ended Oct. 1, 2010.

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$7,644,000 during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$4,179,000
during the nine months ended Oct. 1, 2011.

Asbestos coverage litigation expense was US$8,454,000 during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$10,763,000
during the nine months ended Oct. 1, 2010.

Fulton, Md.-based Colfax Corporation manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves.  Its subsidiaries supply
products under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation,
Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Has $635MM Non-Current Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$635 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared
with US$663 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 27, 2011 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$643 million as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 12, 2011)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$206 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$220
million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Midland, Mich.-based The Dow Chemical Company's portfolio of
specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics
businesses deliver technology-based products and solutions to
customers in about 160 countries and in sectors like electronics,
water, energy, coatings and agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Has $51MM Claims Reserve at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's Exelon Generation Company, LLC had reserved
about US$51 million in total for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims at both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2011 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Generation had reserved about US$53 million total for asbestos-
related bodily injury claims at June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2011)

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company.

As of Sept. 30, 2011, about US$15 million of the US$51 million
related to 178 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$36 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.

Chicago-based Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to
5.4 million customers in northern Illinois (including Chicago) and
southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia) through
subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and PECO Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Posts $1.7MM Sept. 30 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at Sept. 30, 2011, had about
US$1.7 million accrued for asbestos-related liability and related
expenses, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Oct. 26, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At June 30, 2011, the Company had accrued about US$1.5 million for
asbestos liability and related expenses.  (Class Action Reporter,
July 29, 2011)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work it may have performed at various
locations.  The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor
or supplier of asbestos products.

Through Sept. 30, 2011, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 5,100
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,700 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through Sept. 30, 2011, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

The Hague, The Netherlands-based Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
N.V. is an integrated engineering, procurement and construction
services provider and major process technology licensor.  The
Company provides conceptual design, technology, engineering,
procurement, fabrication, construction and commissioning services
to customers in the energy and natural resource industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation is involved in legal and regulatory
proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the normal conduct
of business, relating to such matters as asbestos exposure.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dallas-based Celanese Corporation is a global technology and
specialty materials company.  The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials like methanol, carbon monoxide
and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into
value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-
based products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Defendant Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been
named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

The asbestos products were manufactured by third parties and
integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the
Company's products, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Oct. 26, 2011 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Milwaukee, Wis.-based Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets
products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control
technologies developed both internally and with other technology
companies.  Its products are used in applications, including
water, oil and chemicals.


                           *********

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  * * *