CAR_Public/111125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 234

                             Headlines

ACTOS: Class Action.org Attorneys Review Bladder Cancer Claims
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Affirmed Suit Dismissal in Sept.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Calif. Court Approves FACTA Suits Settlements
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Consolidate Merger Suits
ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM Continues to Defend Alabama Class Suit

ASSURED GUARANTY: Units Continue to Defend "MDL 1950" Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Credit Score Class Action for $9.95MM
BELL: Court Allows Cancellation Fee Class Action to Proceed
BEST BUY: Faces Class Action in California for Violating DPPA
BFC FINANCIAL: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending

BFC FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Overdraft Suit Dismissal Bid
BFC FINANCIAL: Time to Appeal "Schwarz" Suit Dismissal Passed
BIDZ.COM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
CBS INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action for Promoting File-Sharing
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Give Credit Refunds

CHRYSLER GROUP: Canadian Unit Still Defends Antitrust Class Suits
CITIGROUP: N.Y. Ct. Allows Employees to Revise Suit Over FA CAP
CLARUS MARKETING: Faces RICO Class Action in California
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Acquisition-Related Suits vs. Parent Dismissed
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Suits

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDIC: Newcastle Residents to Join Hip Implant Suit
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 6th Securities Class Suit in California
GEOKINETICS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
GOV'T OF GUAM: Faces Class Action Over "Chamorro-Only" Election
HEATHCO LLC: Recalls 75,000 Motion Sensing Wall Switches

HOSPIRA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Illinois
HUMAN GENOME: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Maryland
INVESTORS TITLE: Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending in West Virginia
LEBANON SCHOOL: Class Action Over Truancy Fine Can Proceed
MF GLOBAL: Faces Class Action in New York Over Missing Funds

MILLSAP & SINGER: Faces Class Action in Missouri
NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: Players Amend Antitrust Class Action
NATIONAL CITY: Settles Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation
NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Suit Still Stayed
NORTEL NETWORKS: Fairness Hearing in ERISA Suit Set for Jan. 11

NORTEL NETWORKS: Suit vs. Ex-Officers Remains Stayed in N.Y.
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Two Securities Suits in California
RED ROBIN: Sued Over Delayed Final Wage Payments to Employees
ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Over MF Global Collapse
SATANDER CONSUMER: Faces Class Action for Violating SCRA

SIEBERT FINANCIAL: Settles "Lehman Brothers" Suit for $1 Million
SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Unit Continues to Defend South Carolina Suit
STATE OF ALABAMA: Suit Says New Immigration Law Unconstitutional

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Upholds Ruling in Buttitta's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Luk Clutch Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Summary Judgment in 3 Cases Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $6MM Expense in 3rd Qtr.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Facing 82,800 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand's Sept. 30 Liability at $953.4MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Litigation v. Trane Dismissed in August
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Pursues Coverage Litigation in Wis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Named in Aaron Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,897 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16,000 Claims Still Pending v. BorgWarner Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Subject to Continental Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Accrues $57.8MM Sept. 30 Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. PPG Industries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Accrues $47.2MM Liabilities at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Corley Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids Denied in Vanderbilt Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sun Chemical's Summary Judgment OK'd in Dinneen
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $1.9MM Net Claims Provisions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Has $1.2MM Liability at Oct. 3

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Still Has $1.09-Bil. Sept. 30 Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Still Has 7,500 Claims in Seven States
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $9MM Obligation at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 30 Claims v. Union Carbide Drop to 54,311

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $58MM Sept. 30 Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Pursuing Coverage Action in N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide's Sept. 30 Receivables at $236MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Pending v. IDEX, Six Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Rogers Rise to 228 at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Incurs $339MM Losses at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Handyman Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mytholmroyd Woman's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dominion Fined $12,600 for Violations at Surry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halifax Veteran's Death Due to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mazenko Case v. 66 Firms Filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Settles Veraldo Case in N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsford Local Pleads Guilty to Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney-Client Relationship Debunked in CSX Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ALU Raises Concern Over Products With Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Records $3.98MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Still Subject to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Appeals Court Grants Writ in Beeson Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Yaron Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Ruling in Certified Environmental





                          *********

ACTOS: Class Action.org Attorneys Review Bladder Cancer Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Actos bladder cancer attorneys working with Class Action.org
are reviewing claims from users of the diabetes medication who
were diagnosed with cancerous tumors of the bladder.  Potentially,
these individuals may be able to file a claim seeking compensation
for damages, including medical bills and lost wages, if the
manufacturer failed to adequately warn patients of the potential
Actos bladder cancer risk.  To find out if you can seek monetary
damages, visit http://www.classaction.org/actos.htmlfor a no
cost, no obligation review of your Actos bladder cancer claim.

On June 15, 2011, the FDA released a safety announcement
concerning Actos and bladder cancer.  According to the agency,
patients using the diabetes medication for longer than a year may
have an increased risk of developing bladder cancer.  The Actos
bladder cancer safety communication was released after the agency
reviewed data from an ongoing, long-term study, the five-year
results of which showed no overall increased risk of bladder
cancer with Actos (pioglitazone) use, but an increased risk in
users with the longest exposure to the drug, as well as those
taking the highest cumulative doses.  In light of the Actos
bladder cancer risk, the agency added new information to the
Warning and Precautions sections for Actos and other medications
containing pioglitazone.

Consumers who took Actos and were diagnosed with bladder cancer
may have legal recourse.  Through an Actos lawsuit, bladder cancer
patients may be able to seek compensation for medical bills, pain
and suffering, lost wages and other damages stemming from their
diagnosis.  To learn more about the potential legal rights
available to Actos users diagnosed with bladder cancer, visit
Class Action.org.  The Actos bladder cancer lawyers working with
the site are providing an online case review, at no cost and with
no obligation.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Affirmed Suit Dismissal in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in
September 2011 the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., according to
the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On August 17, 2009, plaintiff Toni Hollinger filed a putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas against several county mutual insurance companies and
reinsurance companies, including Affirmative Insurance Company.
The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in unfair
discrimination and violated the Texas Insurance Code by charging
different policy fees for the same class and hazard of insurance
written through county mutual insurance companies.  On August 5,
2010, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's claims for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff appealed the
dismissal of her claims.

On September 6, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of this action.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Calif. Court Approves FACTA Suits Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval of the settlements in class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act, according to AMC Entertainment Inc.'s
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2011.

In January 2007, a class action complaint captioned Michael
Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (No. CV07-00171) was filed
against the Company in the Central District of the United States
District Court of California (the "District Court") alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA").  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates
nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may
be printed on receipts given to customers.  FACTA imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed
to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual
losses incurred by the card holder.  On October 11, 2011, the
District Court granted final approval of the class action
settlement.

On May 14, 2009, Harout Jarchafjian filed a similar lawsuit
alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA and seeking
statutory damages, but without alleging any actual injury
(Jarchafjian v. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Case No.
CV09-03434)).  The District Court granted final approval of the
class action settlement on October 3, 2011.

The Company says the settlements did not have a material adverse
impact to its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Consolidate Merger Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Alert Corp. is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate their class action lawsuits
arising from the proposed acquisition of the Company by Tunstall
Healthcare Group Limited, according to the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 22, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Tunstall Healthcare
Group Limited ("Tunstall"), and Monitor Acquisition Corp., an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tunstall ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of
certain conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company and the Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Tunstall (the "Merger").

Following the September 22, 2011, announcement of the Merger, on
September 28, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the members of its board of directors by
Joseph Weiss, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
shareholders.  The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau.  The lawsuit asserts claims
for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's directors, some
of whom are also officers.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief
preventing the Merger, recovery of damages as a result of the
alleged actions of the Company's directors, and costs, and
disbursements of the lawsuit, including attorneys', accountants'
and experts' fees.

On September 30, 2011, a putative shareholder's class action
complaint was filed against the Company, the members of its board
of directors, Tunstall and Merger Sub by Diane Kent, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated shareholders.  The complaint
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Queens.  The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the members of the Company's board of directors and aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Company,
Tunstall and Merger Sub.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
defendants from completing the Merger, commencement of an
unspecified sales process, imposition of a constructive trust,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs and other equitable relief.

On October 24, 2011, a putative shareholder's class action
complaint was filed against the Company and the members of its
board of directors by Joyce Fauci, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated shareholders.  The complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens.  The
lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
members of the Company's board of directors and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Company.  The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger,
rescission or rescissory damages, an accounting for damages caused
by the defendants and all profits and special benefits obtained as
a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty, and costs of the
lawsuit, including attorneys', and experts' fees.

On October 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in the actions commenced in
Queens, Diane Kent and Joyce Fauci (together, the "Queens
Plaintiffs"), filed a motion seeking to consolidate the actions
they commenced, as well as any subsequently filed related actions,
under the index number for the action commenced by Diane Kent,
designating the caption of the requested resulting consolidated
action as In re American Medical Alert Corp. Shareholder
Litigation and appointing the law firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and
Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Co-Lead Counsel in the requested
consolidated action.  The Queens Plaintiffs advise the Court in
their motion that Joseph Weiss, who commenced the action pending
in Nassau County, supports the motion and has agreed to coordinate
efforts and jointly prosecute a consolidated action in Queens
County.  The Queens Plaintiffs' motion is pending.

At this time, the Company says it cannot be determined if the
Company will be deemed liable for any damages as a result of these
lawsuits.  The Company has given its insurance carrier notice of
such claims, and it believes that there is sufficient insurance
coverage to pay any damages awarded as a result of the asserted
claims.  The Company and its board of directors believe that these
lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.


ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM Continues to Defend Alabama Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s subsidiary Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"), and other bond insurers, were
named as defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, relating to the County's problems
meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion sewer debt:
Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-
901907.00, a putative class action.  The action was brought on
behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing in
Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of the County's debt.  On January, 13, 2011, the
circuit court issued an order denying a motion by the bond
insurers and other defendants to dismiss the action.  Defendants,
including the bond insurers, have petitioned the Alabama Supreme
Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit court vacating such
order and directing the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of standing.  The complaint in this lawsuit seeks
equitable relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Units Continue to Defend "MDL 1950" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend antitrust lawsuits
against its subsidiaries in the consolidated litigation known as
MDL 1950, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs").  These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings
Inc. ("AGMH") and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"): (a)
Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax
County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School
District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e)
Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.  In April
2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
on the federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint.  In June 2009, interim lead
plaintiffs' counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint; although the Second Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities, it does not name those entities as defendants.  In
March 2010, the MDL 1950 court denied the named defendants'
motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.  The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.  When the four
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the
plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However, the
complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.  The
consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.  Amended complaints in these actions were filed
in September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming AGM
(but not AGMH) and Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. ("AGUS"),
among other defendants.  These cases have been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.

In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.

The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
eleven complaints in April 2010.  Amended complaints were filed in
May 2010.  On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District case only.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally
seek or sought unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
the remaining lawsuits.

In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood
City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the
City and County of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay
Municipal Utility District, California v. Bank of America, N.A.
(filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California) ; and (e) City of San
Jose and the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of
America, N.A (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California).  These
cases have also been transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  In
September 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in a sixth additional non-class action filed in federal court in
New York, but which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act
in addition to federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community,
Inc. d/b/a Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
September 21, 2010, E.D. New York), which has also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  In December 2010, AGM and
AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a seventh additional
non-class action filed in federal court in the Central District of
California, Los Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of
America, N.A., and in an eighth additional non-class action filed
in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Kendal on
Hudson, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. These cases also have been
consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The
complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.  The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.  This case has been consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaint in this
lawsuit generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may arise from this lawsuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Credit Score Class Action for $9.95MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClickOnDetroit.com reports that plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit against Bank of America will soon receive their piece of a
$9.95 million settlement, their attorney said on Nov. 21.

Filed in August 2008 by attorney Ian Lyngklip, the suit alleged
the bank did not properly notify customers that it used credit
scores to process mortgages and home equity loans, which is
required under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

"The important thing is that the statute requires bank to give
consumers notice of their credit score as soon as reasonably
practicable when they use that credit score to determine the
consumer's eligibility for a mortgages," Mr. Lyngklip said in a
statement.


BELL: Court Allows Cancellation Fee Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trudie Mason, writing for CJAD, reports that the courts have
authorized a class action lawsuit on behalf of former customers of
Bell who were dinged for cancellation fees when they got rid of
their landlines.

BGA attorney Benoit Gamache, who is spearheading the lawsuit, says
the authorization of this class action is a move forward for the
rights of the consumer.  That's because it on behalf of two
categories of former Bell customers: those who caved to Bell's
demands for landline cancellation fees of up to 250-dollars and
those who refused to pay and saw their accounts sent to a
collection agency.  For the latter category, the lawsuit seeks
compensation of $500 per person for the collections hassles.

It will now take two to three years to get a judgment on the class
action claim.  Bell could be on the hook for up to seven-million
dollars.

For more information about the class action, go to
http://www.bga-law.com


BEST BUY: Faces Class Action in California for Violating DPPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leopold Kuvin, P.A. filed a class action lawsuit (Case# 9:11-cv-
81292-KLR) in the Southern District Court of Florida on Nov. 22
against Best Buy Corporation for violating the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act or "DPPA", a federal statute that protects the
privacy of personal information assembled by State Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMVs).

The lawsuit alleges Best Buy has established a business practice
of taking, storing, using and/or sharing customers' personal or
highly restricted personal information, without consent, when
customers make a normal return of Best Buy merchandise.  Their
receipt indicates that Best Buy "tracks exchanges and returns . .
. and some of the information from your ID may be stored in a
secure, encrypted database of customer activity that Best Buy and
its affiliates use to track exchanges and returns."

The DPPA specifically prohibits Best Buy's conduct and was
instituted to protect consumers from abuses such as identify theft
and stalking, which often result when information is unsecured and
improperly stored.  The class action alleges that Best Buy's
retention of data accessed on a driver's license is not "use in
the normal course of business" as described by the DPPA.

Gregory S. Weiss, a class action litigator at Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
and lead counsel in the litigation stated, "This class action
seeks injunctive relief against Best Buy to immediately cease an
invasive business practice."  He added, "With the holiday season
upon us, it is unknown how many Best Buy customers may have the
security of their confidential information compromised, simply by
returning a purchase."


BFC FINANCIAL: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order setting aside a jury verdict in favor
of defendants, including a BFC Financial Corporation subsidiary,
remains pending, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In October 2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc. and its current or
former officers were named in a lawsuit which alleged that during
the period of November 9, 2005, through October 25, 2007,
BankAtlantic Bancorp and the named officers knowingly and/or
recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding
BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and
allowance for loan losses.  The Complaint asserted claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
and sought unspecified damages.  On November 18, 2010, a jury
returned a verdict awarding $2.41 per share to shareholders who
purchased shares of BankAtlantic Bancorp's Class A Common Stock
during the period of April 26, 2007, to October 26, 2007, who
retained those shares until the end of the period.  The jury
rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the six month period from
October 19, 2006, to April 25, 2007.  Prior to the beginning of
the trial, the plaintiffs abandoned any claim for any prior
period.  On April 25, 2011, the Court granted defendants' post-
trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and vacated the jury
verdict, resulting in a judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims.  The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's order setting
aside the jury verdict.

In July 2008, BankAtlantic Bancorp, certain officers and Directors
were named in a lawsuit which alleged that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in certain
lending practices with respect to BankAtlantic Bancorp's
Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio.  The Complaint further
alleged that BankAtlantic Bancorp's public filings and statements
did not fully disclose the risks associated with the Commercial
Real Estate Loan Portfolio and sought damages on behalf of
BankAtlantic Bancorp.  In July 2011, the case was dismissed and
the parties exchanged mutual releases and neither the individual
defendants nor BankAtlantic Bancorp made any monetary payments in
connection with the dismissal.


BFC FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Overdraft Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, the two pending class action complaints against
BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc.,
associated with overdraft fees were consolidated.  The Complaint,
which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, alleges that BankAtlantic
improperly re-sequenced debit card transactions from largest to
smallest, improperly assessed overdraft fees on positive balances,
and improperly imposed sustained overdraft fees on customers.
BankAtlantic has filed a motion to dismiss which is pending with
the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


BFC FINANCIAL: Time to Appeal "Schwarz" Suit Dismissal Passed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The time period within which plaintiffs may appeal the dismissal
of a class action lawsuit against subsidiaries of BFC Financial
Corporation has expired, the Company said in its November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 18, 2008, in Case No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled Paul
A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick
Division, the plaintiffs brought a lawsuit alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.
The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws.  On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 persons alleged to have
been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner.

On September 2, 2011, the court issued an Order granting
Bluegreen's Motion for Summary Judgment and, dismissing the
lawsuit in full.  The time period within which the plaintiffs may
appeal the decision has expired.


BIDZ.COM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May and June 2009, Bidz.com, Inc., and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May
22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)).  On July 30, 2009, the Court
consolidated the cases.  The consolidated complaint charges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to
disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did
not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it
uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and
that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its
co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.
On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend.  On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint.  On July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint and on September 8, 2010, the
Plaintiff filed another amended complaint.  On September 27, 2010,
the Company filed another Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint,
which was heard by the Court on November 1, 2010.  The Court took
the Company's Motion under submission in November 2010, and in
February 2011 the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is meritless and it intends
to defend the cases vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


CBS INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action for Promoting File-Sharing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chelle Jones, writing for This Beat Goes, reports that a group of
singers, songwriters, performers and other musicians have joined
the billionaire founder of FilmOn Alki David in a class action
lawsuit against CBS interactive for legitimizing file sharing
tools through its subsidiary CNET.  The suit claims that CBS made
billionaires of dollars promoting P2P software while criticizing
file-sharing and copyright infringement.

David previously filed a class action lawsuit in May but abandoned
his claim by July when he informed the court that he was preparing
a much larger case which would require an amended suit.  The new
lawsuit has added a number of plaintiffs including a number of
rappers and hip hop musicians such as Dough E Fresh, H-Town, Slick
Rick, Ron Browz, 2 Live Crew's Luther Campbell AKA Luke Skywalker
and Sugar Hill Music.  Mr. David has changed lawyers from Michael
Zeller, who has represented Google, eBay and Disney, to Jaime
Marquart of Baker Marquart.

In a video statement released through Filemon.com, Mr. David
referred to the lawsuit as historic and promised that more artist
would be added as plaintiffs once their copyright claims could be
verified and further invited artist who think their work has been
distributed illegally through Limewire to join the suit.  "CBS
Interactive has made billions by inducing the public to break the
law, by providing them the file-sharing software and step-by-step
guides, on exactly how to do it.  No one has held Defendant
accountable for this.  Until now," Mr. Alki continues in his video
statement.

The lawsuit alleges that CBS has enforced copyright only to
improve the company's profitability and encouraged the violation
of copyright wherever the company or its subsidiaries could profit
from the distribution of P2P programs.  "The underlying irony in
this case is that, despite its endemic inducement of the
infringement of plaintiffs' songs, defendants' parent, CBS, does
not hesitate to cast itself as a defender of intellectual property
rights when it concerns its own financial interests.  For example,
defendants' parent company, CBS, routinely harasses individuals
and small Web sites which post small portions of its own
programming with 'cease and desist' letters threatening crushing
litigation.  When that does not work, it does not hesitate to
sue," the complaint reads.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Give Credit Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Live reports that a local law firm on Nov. 22 filed a class
action suit in Hampden Superior Court against two major cable
companies, Charter Communications and Comcast, charging each with
"gouging" their customers by not automatically giving credit or
refunds for lengthy service outages following the recent
snowstorm.

Lawyer Jeffrey S. Morneau of the Springfield firm Connor Morneau &
Olin, filed two separate class action suits against the area's two
major cable companies.

Each suit is filed on behalf of three plaintiffs, but as Mr.
Morneau pointed out, the action covers "all persons residing in
Massachusetts" who are customers of either company and who lost
service during the recent outage but did not receive a credit,
refund or bill adjustment.

With each company reporting 600,000 outages following the Oct. 29-
30 storm, the total number of plaintiffs could potentially reach
1.2 million.

At issue, Mr. Morneau said, is the way the two companies require
customers to apply for refunds for lost service.  He said the
companies should automatically credit customers for lost service,
rather than "making them jump through hoops to get it."

Cable bills charge in advance for future service, while other
utilities like electricity, natural gas and oil heat bill for
service already delivered.

An electric customer, for example, is not charged for power during
an outage because no power was delivered.

With cable, customers are paying up front with the expectation
that service will be delivered, he said.  When it is not,
customers are entitled to get their money back or receive a
credit, he said.

"If you pay for a service and you don't get it, the company can't
keep your money," he said.

Officials at Comcast could not be reached for comment on Nov. 22.

Comcast spokesman Daniel M. Glanville on Nov. 21 told The
Republican the company's policy of requiring people to call in to
request a refund for lost service meets and exceeds state law.
Refunds are handled on a case-by-case basis because outages
lengths vary from location to location, he said.

A spokesman for Charter Communications said the company could not
comment until its lawyers reviewed the complaint.

Charter Communications and Comcast are both based in Delaware.

The Comcast action was filed on behalf of Kenneth J. Askins of 30
Pembroke Lane, Agawam, J. Adam Feldman of 2 Pondview Lane,
Southwick, and Paul E. Mihalak of 331 Newton St., South Hadley.

The Charter action was filed on behalf of Bruce M. Cooper of 12
Abbey Lane, and John W. Romito of 64 Kibbe Road, each of East
Longmeadow, and Roy L. Baker of 43 Sandra Road, Easthampton.

Mr. Mihalak, 63, a retired South Hadley resident, said he signed
on as a plaintiff against Comcast because he had grown tired of
years of spotty service and dealing with what he called
indifferent customer service representatives.

The last straw was the most recent storm, which knocked out his
cable television for six days.

"But when the bill came, there was nothing taken off, there was no
explanation," he said.  "It was just 'pay your bill.'"

He heard there was a lawsuit in the works and was directed
eventually to Mr. Morneau, where he willingly signed on as one of
the plaintiffs.  He said he does not expect much in the way of a
settlement, maybe just few bucks off his bill.

But if it sends a message to a major corporation that it needs to
treat its customers better, it will be a worth it, he said.

"I'm just tired of being taken for granted and having nowhere to
go complain about it," he said.  "It's time for the little guy to
take on Goliath."

Mr. Cooper expressed the same frustration about his Charter
service.

He lost power for four days during the outage but his cable,
television and telephone did not come back on for five days after
that.  To top it off, no one from the company could explain why or
give him an estimate for when it would return.

The company's response to the outage was "really pretty pathetic,"
Mr. Cooper said.

He said he does not expect much from the suit, maybe "a small sum
of money."  Mostly what he wants is for the company to be more
responsive to its customers and to automatically issue credits for
future outages.

Mr. Cooper, who works as a ticket broker, said "If I don't provide
a service, I can't expect to be paid for it."


CHRYSLER GROUP: Canadian Unit Still Defends Antitrust Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 80 purported class action lawsuits alleging violations
of antitrust law were filed on various dates in 2003 against
several motor vehicle manufacturers, including Chrysler Group
LLC's subsidiary, Chrysler Canada Inc., as well as the National
Automobile Dealers Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers
Association.  Some complaints were filed in federal courts in
various states and others were filed in state courts.  The
complaints allege that the defendants conspired to prevent the
sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers in Canada in
order to maintain new car prices at artificially high levels in
the U.S. The complaints seek injunctive relief and treble damages
on behalf of each person who bought or leased a new vehicle in the
U.S. between 2001 and 2003.  The federal court actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
and, in July 2009, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  Chrysler Canada remains a defendant
in four of the pending state court actions.  In addition, Chrysler
Canada is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in September 2007 that
claims that a similar alleged conspiracy was preventing lower cost
U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians.

No further updates were reported in the November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


CITIGROUP: N.Y. Ct. Allows Employees to Revise Suit Over FA CAP
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit, Daniel Brecher, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09 Civ. 7359 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Sidney H. Stein gave the
plaintiffs until Nov. 28, 2011, to file a revised version of their
consolidated class action complaint.  The Plaintiffs allegedly
purchased restricted Citigroup stock and stock options from
Citigroup as part of an employee incentive plan known as the
Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation Program.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of FA CAP participants and
assert federal securities claims against Citigroup Inc.; Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc; and six Citigroup directors that served on
the board's Personnel and Compensation Committee -- C. Michael
Armstrong, Alain J.P. Belda, Kenneth T. Derr, John M. Deutch,
Richard D. Parsons, and Ann Dibble Jordan; the P&C Committee
itself, which administered the FA CAP; and 30 John Does who
allegedly sold FA CAP securities.  The revised complaint will omit
certain named defendants and will limit the scope of certain
claims.

A copy of the District Court's Nov. 14, 2011 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/CFF8ljfrom Leagle.com


CLARUS MARKETING: Faces RICO Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO class action
claims Clarus Marketing and Provide-Commerce defraud consumers by
charging them for continuing "memberships" they don't want and
didn't want to subscribe to, because they clicked on a "free
shipping" offer.

A copy of the Complaint in Cox, et al. v. Clarus Marketing Group,
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02711 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/22/IntFraud.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP APC
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  alisa@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: bstecker@baronbudd.com
                  msbaiti@baronbudd.com


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Acquisition-Related Suits vs. Parent Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuits arising from the acquisition of
Commercial Barge Line Company's parent by certain affiliates of
Platinum Equity, LLC, have been dismissed, the Company disclosed
in its November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Commercial Barge Line Company ("CBL") is a Delaware corporation.
CBL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Commercial Lines Inc.
("ACL").  CBL does not conduct any operations independent of its
ownership interests in the consolidated subsidiaries.  ACL is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ACL I Corporation ("ACL I").  ACL I is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Finn Holding Corporation ("Finn").
Finn is primarily owned by certain affiliates of Platinum Equity,
LLC (the certain affiliates of Platinum Equity, LLC referred to as
"Platinum").  On December 21, 2010, Platinum acquired ACL.  The
Acquisition was accomplished through the merger of Finn Merger
Corporation ("Finn Merger"), a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of ACL I, a Delaware corporation, with and into
ACL.  The assets of ACL consist principally of its ownership of
all of the stock of CBL.

On October 22, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against ACL, ACL's directors, Platinum, Finn and Finn Merger in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The lawsuit is
captioned Leonard Becker v. American Commercial Lines Inc. et al,
Civil Action No. 5919-VCL.  Plaintiff amended his complaint on
November 5, 2010, prior to a formal response from any defendant.
On November 9, 2010, a second putative class action lawsuit was
commenced against ACL, ACL's directors, Platinum, Finn and Finn
Merger in the Superior/Circuit Court for Clark County in the State
of Indiana.  The lawsuit is captioned Michael Eakman v. American
Commercial Lines Inc., et al., Case No. 1002-1011-CT-1344.  In
both actions, plaintiffs allege generally that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction
by, among other things, carrying out a process that they allege
did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to the
stockholders.  They also allege that various disclosures
concerning the Transaction included in the Definitive Proxy
Statement are inadequate.  They further allege that Platinum aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of duties.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring the lawsuits on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company and seek equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the
merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief.

ACL entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and
Settlement, dated as of June 18, 2011, which sets forth the terms
and conditions of a proposed settlement of the Delaware and
Indiana actions, including the dismissal with prejudice and on the
merits of all claims against all of the defendants in both the
Delaware and Indiana actions in consideration for the
supplementation of the Definitive Proxy Statement and payment of
$200,000 of plaintiffs' attorney fees.  The Settlement was
approved by the Court and the actions have been dismissed.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Barge Line Company is still awaiting final dismissal of
class action lawsuits arising from a collision incident in
Mississippi River involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

American Commercial Lines Inc. ("ACL"), the parent of Commercial
Barge Line Company ("CBL"), and American Commercial Lines LLC
("ACLLLC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBL, have been named as
defendants in putative class action lawsuits, filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(collectively the "Class Action Lawsuits"): Austin Sicard et al on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin
Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D.
Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-
4012, filed on July 24, 2008; Stephen Marshall Gabarick and
Bernard Attridge, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated vs Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines,
Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association,
Case No. 08-4007, filed on July 24, 2008; and Alvin McBride, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Laurin
Maritime (America) Inc.; Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing
Co. LLC; American Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton
Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed
on July 24, 2009.  The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action
has been dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed prior
to the deadline set by the Court.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on
July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was
being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C. ("DRD"), an independent
towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a collision
with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at
Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.
The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil,
of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank barge
was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.  There was no
damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor damage.  The
Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability
related to the incident.  All claims in the class actions have
been settled with payment to be made from funds on deposit with
the court in the IINA and IINA and Houston Casualty Company
interpleader.  IINA is DRD's primary insurer and IINA and Houston
Casualty Company are DRD's excess insurers.  The settlement has
final approval from the court.  Settlement funds were provided to
claimants' counsel and the Company expects final dismissal of all
lawsuits against all parties will be entered, including the
Company, with prejudice.

Claims under the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA 90") were dismissed
without prejudice.  There is a separate administrative process for
making a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to
litigation.  The Company is processing OPA 90 claims properly
presented, documented and recoverable.  The Company has also
received numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and
various economic damages loss related to the oil spill, including
notification by the National Pollution Funds Center of claims it
has received.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and claims
submitted.  The claims by two of the three DRD crewmen on the
vessel at the time of the incident have been settled with funds
paid from the funds on deposit in the interpleader action and a
final dismissal with prejudice has been entered.  The third crew
member was the operator of the vessel at the time of the incident
and is also a defendant.  His claim remains unsettled.  The
Company is in early discussions with the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment Group, consisting of various State and Federal
agencies, regarding the scope of environmental damage that may
have been caused by the incident.

Recently, Buras Marina filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Louisiana in Case No. 09-4464 against the Company seeking payment
for "rental cost" of its marina for cleanup operations. ACL and
ACLLLC have also been named as defendants in the following
interpleader action brought by DRD's primary insurer IINA seeking
court approval as to the disbursement of the funds: Indemnity
Insurance Company of North America v. DRD Towing Company, LLC; DRD
Towing Group, LLC; American Commercial Lines, LLC; American
Commercial Lines, Inc.; Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC, Daigle, Fisse &
Kessenich; Stephen Marshall Gabarick; Bernard Attridge; Austin
Sicard; Lamont L. Murphy, individually and on behalf of Murphy
Dredging; Deep Delta Distributors, Inc.; David Cvitanovich; Kelly
Clark; Timothy Clark, individually and on behalf of Taylor Clark,
Bradley Barrosse; Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M. Alfonso, Sr.; George C.
McGee; Sherral Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and Acy J. Cooper, Jr.,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil
Action 08-4156, Section "I-5," filed on August 11, 2008. DRD's
excess insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty Company intervened into
this action and deposited $9,000,000 into the Court's registry.
ACLLLC has filed two actions in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from or
limitation of liability relating to the foregoing incident as
provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C. sections 30501,
30505 and 30511.  The Company has also filed a declaratory
judgment action against DRD seeking to have the contracts between
them declared "void ab initio".  This action has been consolidated
with the limitation actions and stayed pending the outcome of the
limitation actions.  Trial has concluded and post trial briefs
have been submitted.  Closing arguments are scheduled for December
2011.

On August 22, 2011 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana captioned United States of
America v. American Commercial Lines LLC and D.R.D. Towing, LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-2076.  The action seeks damages of
approximately $25 million, including certain repayment to the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund for sums it paid related to the cleanup
of the oil spill, a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act in an
amount to be determined at trial as well as a claim for natural
resources.  On July 25, 2011, an action was filed in the 25th
Judicial District for the Parish of Plaquemines State of Louisiana
captioned Chuc Nguyen, et al. v. American Commercial Lines, Inc.
and its Insurers, ABC Insurance Company and Indemnity Insurance
Company of North America, No. 58936.  The action seeks damages for
real or personal property, loss of subsistence use of natural
resources associated with loss of profits or impairment of earning
capacity.  The Company participated in the U.S. Coast Guard
investigation of the matter and participated in the hearings which
have concluded.  A finding has not yet been announced.  The
Company has also made demand on DRD (including its insurers) and
Laurin Maritime for reimbursement of cleanup costs,
indemnification and other damages sustained by the Company.
However, there is no assurance that any other party that may be
found responsible for the accident will have the insurance or
financial resources available to provide such defense and
indemnification.  The Company has various insurance policies
covering pollution, property, marine and general liability.  While
the cost of cleanup operations and other potential liabilities are
significant, the Company believes it has satisfactory insurance
coverage and other legal remedies to cover substantially all of
the cost.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDIC: Newcastle Residents to Join Hip Implant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that lawyers mounting a class action over
substandard hip replacements have identified a pocket of people
affected in Newcastle.

Around 5,000 ASR hip replacements have been inserted by
orthopaedic surgeons across Australia, with up to 30% expected to
fail.

Shine Lawyers commenced a class action in September against the US
company DePuy and the replacements have been recalled.

Lawyer Rebecca Jancauskas says up to 40 Newcastle people had the
replacements inserted.

"I think there was one or two surgeons that were quite active in
implanting those prosthesis that have been recalled so we do have
a pocket of Newcastle people," she said.

"It's a really important case because really the size and the
scale of it we think it's one of the biggest product liability
stuff ups that we've had."


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 6th Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry J. MacFarland, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Michael J. Mendes and
Steven M. Neil, Case No. 5:11-cv-05615 (N.D. Calif., November 21,
2011) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Diamond during the period from December 9, 2010, through
November 4, 2011, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Diamond.

Diamond, a Delaware corporation, is a branded food company
specializing in processing, marketing and distributing culinary,
snack, in-shell and ingredient nuts.  Mr. Mendes is the Company's
chairman, president and chief executive officer.  Mr. Neil is the
Company's executive vice president, chief financial officer and
chief administrative officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN WELLING, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Scott J. Farrell, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  tjm@rigrodskylong.com
                  sjf@rigrodskylong.com


GEOKINETICS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geokinetics Inc., is defending a wage and hour class action
lawsuit in California, the Company disclosed in its November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 13, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit styled Moncada, et al. v. Petroleum Geo-Services, et al.
filed in the Superior Court of California in Kern County.  This is
a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs claim
that they were not properly compensated from June 2009 to April
2010 for meal and rest breaks, in addition to overtime pay.  This
matter is at an early stage in the litigation process;
accordingly, the Company currently cannot assess the probability
of losses, or reasonably estimate a range of any potential losses
related to the proceeding.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend itself in this proceeding.


GOV'T OF GUAM: Faces Class Action Over "Chamorro-Only" Election
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guam News reports that a class action lawsuit was filed in Guam
District Court on Nov. 22 alleging that the Guam Election
Commission has "illegally and unconstitutionally" refused to allow
Guam voters who do not meet the definition of "native inhabitant"
to register for the referendum on Guam's future political status
with the United States.

The lawsuit was filed in Guam by Mun Su Park, a Korean American
who practices law out of an office in Tamuning.  But the complaint
was prepared by Washington D.C. attorneys Michael Roseman of the
Center for Individual Rights and Christian Adams of the Election
Law Center.

The Center for Individual Rights filed suit on Nov. 22 against
Guam, the Guam Election Commission and seven named Guam officials
for discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic heritage under
Guamanian laws that prohibit individuals who are not "native
inhabitants of Guam" from voting on a plebiscite concerning Guam's
future relationship to the United States.

As "native inhabitant" is defined by law, almost all of the
individuals who are permitted to register and vote in the
plebiscite are members of the Chamorro racial group.  "Chamorro"
is a racial designation that refers to groups of native peoples
that inhabited Guam prior to the influx of people from Western
Europe, the United States, and other Asian and Pacific Island
countries.  The term "native inhabitant" excludes most Caucasian,
black, Korean, Chinese, and Filipino citizens of the United States
living on Guam.  Currently, the Chamorro racial designation refers
to about thirty six percent of the population of Guam.

The Defendant Guam Election Commission has illegally and
unconstitutionally refused to allow registered voters who do not
meet the definition of "native inhabitant" to register for the
plebiscite and refused non-Chamorros the opportunity to vote in
this crucial election concerning the future of Guam solely on the
basis of their race and ethnic origin.

CIR is representing Arnold Davis in this suit, a white non-
Chamorro and long-time resident of Guam who believes that all
residents of Guam who otherwise meet the requirements to vote
should be provided an equal opportunity to participate in the
plebiscite regardless of race or ethnic heritage.

Mr. Davis is a retired U.S. Air Force officer who has resided on
Guam since 1977.  He is a United States citizen, a resident of
Guam, and a registered voter who has voted in the past in many
Guam general elections.  When he applied to register for the
plebiscite, he was not permitted to do so because he does not meet
the definition of "Native Inhabitant of Guam."

In holding a "Chamorro-only" election (or any racially
discriminatory election), Guam and its officials are acting in
plain violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of
1965, the 1950 Organic Act of Guam, and other federal and
Guamanian laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race
or ethnic heritage.  The suit seeks to enjoin the further illegal
use of racial or ethnic restrictions on who may vote in the
plebiscite.

Though Mr. Davis apprised the U.S. Department of Justice in 2009
that Guam's discriminatory voting laws facially violate the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (among other statutes), the Department declined
to investigate.  The Department did not explain its refusal to
enforce federal law in Guam, and Mr. Davis was forced to file the
suit in order to protect his right to vote on the same terms as
all other citizens of Guam, regardless of race.

Mr. Davis commented, "There's nothing subtle or indirect or even
at all ambiguous about the plebiscite law.  It seeks to empower
fewer than forty percent of our population to make a profoundly
important political decision on a public matter that's properly
and constitutionally a right of all the people."

Mr. Adams, a former attorney in the Voting Rights Section of the
Department of Justice, has agreed to serve as lead counsel in the
case.  He has participated in the successful litigation of
numerous voting rights violations during his five year career at
the Justice Department.

Mr. Adams commented, "all United States citizens are protected by
the Voting Rights Act and the guarantees of racial fairness in the
15th Amendment to the Constitution.  Nobody should be subjected to
racial discrimination in voting no matter who is doing the
discriminating, or why."

CIR President Terence Pell added, "The fact that Guam's flagrant
racial discrimination continues to take place under the nose of
the U.S. Department of Justice is difficult to square with the
Constitution, which is very clear that all U.S. citizens are
entitled to equal enforcement of the law regardless of race.  That
includes all the citizens of Guam too."

The Center for Individual Rights -- http://www.cir-usa.org-- is a
non-profit public interest firm that specializes in civil rights,
free speech, and other cases affecting individual rights.


HEATHCO LLC: Recalls 75,000 Motion Sensing Wall Switches
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
HeathCo, LLC of Bowling Green, Kentucky, announced a voluntary
recall of about 75,000 Heath(R)/Zenith and WirelessCommand(R)
motion sensing wall switches.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

When the switches are in the auto mode and the light is off, a
small amount of leakage current passes through the electric
circuit, including the socket.  If consumers fail to disconnect
the power at the circuit breaker and make contact with both
terminals inside the socket while replacing the bulbs, there is a
risk of an electric shock.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Heath(R)/Zenith and WirelessCommand(R) motion
sensing wall switches with model numbers listed below.  The
product replaces a standard household wall switch and is designed
to turn off the attached lighting load when motion is no longer
detected in the room.  The products come in white or ivory.  The
brand name and model number can be found on a label located on the
side of the switch.

      BRAND                  MODEL
      -----                  -----
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6106-IV
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6106-IV-A
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6106-WH
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6106-WH-A
      Wireless Command(R)    WC-6106-IV
      Wireless Command(R)    WC-6106-WH
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6108-IV
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6108-IV-A
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6108-WH
      Heath(R)-Zenith        SL-6108-WH-A
      Wireless Command(R)    WC-6108-IV
      Wireless Command(R)    WC-6108-WH

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12046.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
merchants, electrical distributors, hardware retailers and online
retailers from August 2007 through August 2011 for between $20 and
$25.  Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wall
switches and contact the company for a free wall switch
replacement.  For additional information, contact HeathCo toll-
free at (855) 704-5438 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, e-mail hzproductnotice@heathcollc.com
or visit the company's Web site at http://www.heath-
zenith.com/hzproductnotice/


HOSPIRA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Hospira, a
medical supplies company, propped up its share price by concealing
quality control problems, and the stock price fell by more than
50% when the truth came out.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Sterling Heights General
Employees' Retirement System v. Hospira, Inc., et al., Case No.
11-cv-08332 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Jack Reise, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  jreise@rgrdlaw.com
                  rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200


HUMAN GENOME: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Human Genome Sciences Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action filed in the United States District
Court, District of Maryland, Southern Division, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased HGS
securities during the period from July 20, 2009 and November 11,
2010, including all persons who acquired the common stock of HGS
pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading registration
statements and prospectuses issued in connection with the
Company's July 28, 2009 public offering of 26.7 million shares of
common stock at $14 and its December 2, 2009 public offering of
17.8 million shares of common stock at $26.75.

This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and
78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased HGS securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 10, 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 at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning a
potential new drug, Benlysta, also called belimumab, for the
treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which is a chronic,
life-threatening autoimmune disease.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that in clinical drug trials they conducted,
Benlysta was associated with suicide.

On November 12, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted
its analysis of Benlysta and the drug's association with suicide
in clinical drug trials.  As a result of this disclosure, HGS
shares dropped $2.88 or nearly 11%, to close at $23.60 per share
on November 12, 2010.

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.


INVESTORS TITLE: Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against several
title insurance companies, including Investors Title Company's
subsidiary, Investors Title Insurance Company, entitled Backel v.
Fidelity National Title Insurance et al. (6:2008- CV-00181).  The
plaintiff in this case contends a lack of meaningful oversight by
agencies with which title insurance rates are filed and approved.
There are further allegations that the title insurance companies
have conspired to fix title insurance rates.  The plaintiffs seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief. Similar lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions,
several of which have already been dismissed.  In West Virginia,
the case has been placed on the inactive list pending the
resolution of the bankruptcy of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
The Company believes that this case is without merit, and intends
to vigorously defend against the allegations.  At this stage in
the litigation, the Company does not have the ability to make a
reasonable range of estimates in regards to potential loss
amounts, if any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Investors Title Company is engaged through its subsidiaries in the
business of issuing and underwriting title insurance policies.
The Company also provides investment management services to
individuals, companies, banks and trusts, as well as services in
connection with tax-deferred exchanges of like-kind property.


LEBANON SCHOOL: Class Action Over Truancy Fine Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that parents who
claim the Lebanon School District grossly overfined them for their
childrens' truancy can move forward with a class action, a federal
judge ruled.

The district had moved to dismiss, claiming it is not the proper
defendant and that the parents had failed to state a claim.  Chief
U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane disagreed last week, saying the
district "fundamentally mistconstrues" the nature of the claims in
the action and "raised no arguments either in its motion to
dismiss or in its objections . . . challenging the claims [the
parents] actually raise."

Partnering with the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, the parents filed suit in January, claiming that
the Lebanon School District violated their rights to equal
protection and due process by collecting excessive truancy fines.

Between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2009, the district violated
state law truancy fine limits by issuing 935 fines in excess of
$300, according to the complaint.  At least 178 fines allegedly
exceeded $1,000, with some climbing to $9,000.  The district
accepted and retained at least 323 of the excessive fines, adding
up to a minimum total of $107,000, according to the complaint.

Though the district "sought and obtained a downward adjustment of
at least 340 fines" in 2010, the parents and the NAACP claimed
"that at least 273 of the illegal fines that still have
outstanding balances were excluded from the adjustments."

The adjustments allegedly did not affect a single fine already
paid in full, rather affecting "solely those fines with
outstanding balances due."

Parents say the district has yet to notify them of a procedure to
seek adjustment, and it has not offered them any restitution of
excessive amounts already paid.

Judge Kane's decision to let the parents pursue their claims
aligns with a magistrate judge's recommendation from July.

The district claimed that U.S. Magistrate Judge Mildred Methvin's
report "failed to take notice of the fact that only the courts,
and not the school district, have authority to issue and/or
collect fines in truancy matters."

Judge Kane agreed with Judge Methvin, however, that the parents
"did not challenge the imposition of fines, but rather . . . [the]
decision to request a reduction of only some of the excessive
fines."  The district's argument failed "to confront the
substance" of the parents' complaint, Judge Kane added.

"As noted by Magistrate Judge Methvin, the complaint does not
challenge the imposition of fines," she wrote.  "Rather,
plaintiffs challenge, inter alia, defendant's actions in
'selectively seeking reduction of statutorily excessive fines,'
'using undisclosed criteria to determine which excessive fines
imposed would be selected for adjustment,' and the failure 'to
provide plaintiffs and plaintiff class members with any
opportunity to establish whether fines imposed on them met the
criteria."

Judge Methvin properly found that the parents and the NAACP have a
"plausible claim that such actions are procedurally instituted by
the district, and the district plays an active role in truancy
adjudication," according to the Nov. 16 decision.

District officials had also argued that parents could not prove
equal-protection violations since there were "no facts from which
discriminatory intent can be inferred," and because the parents
cannot show they "were treated differently from similarly situated
individuals on the basis of any protected class."

Again Judge Kane sided with Judge Methvin, saying the parents
"pleaded sufficient facts to support a finding that similarly
situated individuals were treated differently and that no rational
basis exists for the distinction between the excessive fines that
were reduced and those that were not."

Though the district claimed that there was a lack of property
interest, Judge Kane said that argument was "completely
unsupported" because money is the property interest that was
allegedly violated.

The fact that truancy actions are summary criminal proceedings
furthermore does not require the parents to establish a lack of
probable cause, Judge Kane added.  But the parents have taken aim
at the district's decision to "selectively seek reduction of only
a fraction of the statutorily excessive fines," so the district
has failed "to articulate any reason to support a finding that
probable cause is a defense to such an action."

"Each of defendant's arguments assume that plaintiffs have
challenged the imposition of the statutorily excessive fines," the
10-page decision states.  "They have not.  Rather, plaintiffs
challenge defendant's actions in selectively seeking to reduce
only a fraction of the fines imposed that exceeded the statutory
maximum.  Defendant has raised no arguments either in its motion
to dismiss or in its objections to Magistrate Judge Methvin's
Report and Recommendation challenging the claims plaintiffs
actually raise."

A copy of the Memorandum Order in Rivera, et al. v. Lebanon School
District, Case No. 11-cv-00147 (M.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/22/TruancyFines.pdf


MF GLOBAL: Faces Class Action in New York Over Missing Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that an MF
Global Holdings Ltd. customer filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against the bankrupt firm and its former head, Jon
Corzine.

Davide Accomazzo, managing director of Cervino Capital Management
LLC, a Topanga, California-based commodity trading adviser,
claimed in the suit filed in federal court in Manhattan that his
money and other assets belonging to his clients were lost after MF
Global commingled them with its own funds.

Mr. Accomazzo alleged in the proposed class-action, or group,
lawsuit that MF Global perpetrated a fraud and argued it's a
"bedrock principle" that futures commission merchants such as MF
Global weren't allowed to mix funds held in customer accounts with
their own funds under any circumstances.  He said the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange also prohibits such practices.

Mr. Corzine and other officers of the futures brokerage operator,
including Bradley Abelow, president and chief operating officer,
and Henri Steenkamp, the company's chief financial officer,
violated the Commodity Exchange Act and prohibitions against
commingling clients' money.

Cervino's clients "have lost money and other assets deposited at
MF Global," Mr. Accomazzo said in the complaint.

"MF Global improperly diverted customers' cash for its own use in
the days before its bankruptcy, an act that regulators believe may
help explain why $600 million of customer funds remains missing,"
Mr. Accomazzo wrote in his complaint.

MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31.

This lawsuit is one of several that have been previously filed in
federal court in New York against MF Global, Mr. Corzine and
company officials.

Maria Gemskie, a spokeswoman for MF Global, didn't immediately
return a voice-mail message left at her office seeking comment
about the lawsuit against current and former MF officials.

The case is Accomazzo v. Corzine, 11-CV-8467, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


MILLSAP & SINGER: Faces Class Action in Missouri
------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that The Millsap &
Singer law firm, "one of Missouri's largest foreclosure firms,"
violates its role as a neutral trustee in foreclosures by serving
as attorney-in-fact for lenders, a class action claims in City
Court.

Lead plaintiff Nurdin Beganovic says that in Missouri no court
proceeding is needed for a foreclosure, and the trustee is the
only neutral party involved.

The trustee must work for the benefit of both parties, but
Mr. Beganovic said Millsap does not.

Millsap, which operates out of Chesterfield, Mo., "is one of
Missouri's largest foreclosure firms," the complaint states.

Mr. Beganovic claims Millsap attorneys, who handle thousands of
foreclosures, have or should have knowledge of the increasing
evidence of widespread fraud and negligence by lenders.

But instead of investigating lenders, Mr. Beganovic says, Millsap
looks the other way due to the profits it receives from
foreclosures and because the firm will get more money from
unlawful detainer lawsuits on the same homes it foreclosed on.

"Millsap & Singer has an ongoing relationship with many of the
parties who bid on the properties at the foreclosure sale
including, in many cases, an ongoing attorney-client
relationship," the complaint states.

"Millsap & Singer has appeared as an advocate against debtors who
contest the validity of foreclosures while simultaneously and
purportedly serving as the trustee regarding those exact same
properties.

"In addition, upon information and belief, Millsap has actual
knowledge of complete files of debtors, the irregularities that
exist in said files, the widespread problems with fraud and
negligence by mortgage industry actors, evidence suggesting the
non-validity of purported note transfers, the non-existence of
notes, and the lack of right to initiate foreclosures it has
handled."

The class consists of all people who have been foreclosed upon in
Missouri in which Millsap served as the trustee while it was also
the attorney in fact for the party who initiated the foreclosure.

The class wants Millsap enjoined from continuing to do this, and
actual and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty and
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Beganovic v. Millsap & Singer, P.C.,
Case No. 1122-CC10658 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/22/Millsap.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Campbell, Esq.
          Erich Vieth, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          701 Market St., Suite 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jcampbell@simonlawpc.com
                  evieth@simonlawpc.com


NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: Players Amend Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports that NBA
players have amended their antitrust class action against the
league.  The amended complaint adds plaintiffs and details about
the failed collective-bargaining sessions that preceded the
dissolution of the players' union.

Like the original complaint, lead plaintiffs Carmelo Anthony,
Chauncey Billups and James Caron Butler claim the NBA and its 30
clubs conspired to enforce an "unlawful group boycott and price-
fixing arrangement," to eliminate competition for free agents and
to boycott rookies seeking their first contract.

A copy of the First Amended Class Action Complaint in Anthony, et
al. v. National Basketball Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
03352 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/22/NBA%20Amended.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara Podlucky Berens, Esq.
          Justi Rae Miller, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER, P.A.
          3720 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-6171
          E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com
                  jmiller@berensmiller.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8201

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
          Duane L. Loft, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          David G. Feher, Esq.
          David L. Greenspan, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone:  (212) 259-8050

               - and -

          William Hunter, Esq.
          310 Lenox Avenue
          New York, NY 10027
          Telephone: (212) 655-0911


NATIONAL CITY: Settles Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on Nov. 22 issued a statement regarding the In
re National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
DIVISION

In re NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & ERISA
LITIGATION CLASS ACTION, MDL NO.: 2003, CASE NO. 1:08-nc-70004

Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION ("NATIONAL CITY",
TRADING SYMBOL NYSE: NCC) BETWEEN APRIL 30, 2007 AND APRIL 21,
2008, INCLUSIVE, AND ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED NATIONAL CITY COMMON
STOCK ISSUED PURSUANT TO A NATIONAL CITY REGISTRATION STATEMENT
FILED WITH THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC") IN
CONNECTION WITH NATIONAL CITY'S ACQUISITION OF MAF BANCORP, INC.
ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 1, 2007 (THE "MAF SUBCLASS").

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing will be
held on March 19, 2012 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Solomon
Oliver, Jr. at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, 801 W. Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113,
to determine whether the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of
the above-captioned action ("Action") for $168,000,000 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 4, 2011
(the "Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the Amended
Complaint filed in the Action on the merits and with prejudice;
whether the release by the Settlement Class of the Released
Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the
Released Parties; whether to award Class Counsel attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below); and whether the Plan of
Allocation set forth in the Notice should be approved by the
Court.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF
NATIONAL CITY BETWEEN APRIL 30, 2007 AND APRIL 21, 2008,
INCLUSIVE, OR ACQUIRED NATIONAL CITY COMMON STOCK ISSUED PURSUANT
TO A NATIONAL CITY REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SEC IN
CONNECTION WITH NATIONAL CITY'S ACQUISITION OF MAF BANCORP, INC.
ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 1, 2007, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.  If you are a Settlement Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than
March 9, 2012 in accordance with the procedures set forth therein,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim and Release by March 9, 2012 will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request
exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and
any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof
of Claim and Release.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to or opt out of the Settlement),
and a Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain these
documents by visiting the Web site of the Claims Administrator at
http://www.nationalcitysecuritiessettlement.comor by writing to:

In re National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA
Litigation Claims Administrator, c/o BMC Group P.O. Box 2010,
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2010

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and
served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice
referred to above, no later than February 27, 2012.  If you desire
to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion postmarked by February 18, 2012, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice.  All
Members of the Settlement Class who have not timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Counsel for the Settlement Class:

        Andrew McNeela
        KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
        825 Third Avenue
        16th Floor
        New York, NY 10022
        Fax: (212) 751-2540
        Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/
                  http://www.nationalcitysecuritiessettlement.com/

Dated: November 10, 2011

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION


NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Nortel Networks Corporation and its principal direct
operating subsidiary, Nortel Networks Limited ("NNL"), in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada, alleging,
among other things, that certain recent changes related to
Nortel's pension plan did not comply with the Pension Benefits Act
(Ontario) or common law notification requirements.  The plaintiffs
seek declaratory and equitable relief, and unspecified monetary
damages.  As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, this
lawsuit has been stayed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Fairness Hearing in ERISA Suit Set for Jan. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
scheduled a fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement
in a consolidated class action lawsuit involving Nortel Networks
Corporation and its subsidiaries for January 11, 2012, according
to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Beginning in December 2001, Nortel Networks Corporation ("Nortel"
or "NNC"), Nortel Networks Limited ("NNL"), Nortel's principal
direct operating subsidiary, and Nortel Networks Inc. ("NNI"),
together with certain of its then-current and former directors,
officers and employees, were named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  These lawsuits were
consolidated into a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee (the "U.S. District Court").
This lawsuit is on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
Nortel Networks Inc. Long-Term Investment Plan, who held shares of
the Nortel Networks Stock Fund during the class period.  The
lawsuit alleged, among other things, material misrepresentations
and omissions to induce participants and beneficiaries to continue
to invest in and maintain investments in NNC common shares through
the investment plan.  As a result of the Creditor Protection
Proceedings, on September 25, 2009, the U.S. District Court
ordered the case administratively closed.  The parties to the
action agreed to a final form of Stipulation of Settlement ("the
Stipulation") whereby the defendants will cause their underwriter,
Chubb Insurance Company of Canada ("Chubb"), to pay $21.5 million
into an escrow account on behalf of the defendants as full and
final settlement of the action and in consideration for the
releases and discharges provided under the Stipulation.  Such
settlement amount will be distributed in accordance with the terms
of the Stipulation.  In a side agreement, NNC, NNL, NNI and Chubb
stipulated that existing claims filed by Chubb in the Creditor
Protection Proceedings in Canada and in the U.S. will be reduced
and allowed as general unsecured claims upon deposit by Chubb of
the final settlement payments.  The Stipulation and the side
agreement were approved by the Canadian Court and the U.S. Court.
The U.S. District Court has also granted preliminary approval of
the Stipulation and has scheduled a fairness hearing for final
approval for January 11, 2012.  Nortel says it has recorded a
provision to reflect its best estimate of an allowed claim amount.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Suit vs. Ex-Officers Remains Stayed in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks
Corporation's former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer remains stayed in New York, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On May 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of
federal securities law between the period of May 2, 2008 through
September 17, 2008, against Mike Zafirovski (Nortel's former
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Pavi Binning (Nortel's
former Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Restructuring Officer).  Although Nortel is not a named defendant,
this lawsuit has been stayed as a result of the Creditor
Protection Proceedings.  Messrs. Zafirovski and Binning have filed
claims in the U.S. Court for indemnification and contribution for
potential liability arising out of this matter in amounts to be
determined.  As of November 8, 2010, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that the
matter be placed on the suspense docket pending developments in
the Creditor Protection Proceedings.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Two Securities Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., is facing two class
action lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws, according
to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On October 21, 2011, and October 24, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers and directors were named in two identical
purported class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo (Young v. Pacific
Biosciences, et al. Case No. CIV509210 and Sandnas v. Pacific
Biosciences, et al., Case No. CIV 509259).  Plaintiffs have
brought claims alleging violation of several provisions of federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's
August 16, 2010 registration statement (as amended, effective as
of October 26, 2010).  The complaints seek, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs.
Pursuant to Delaware law, the Company may have obligations, under
certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the
Company's directors and certain officers, including those named in
the actions, against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses
related to claims arising against such directors and officers to
the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company's
bylaws and certificate of incorporation.  Such obligations for
indemnification may apply to these lawsuits.

The Company believes that the allegations in each of these pending
actions are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the
actions.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company will
be successful in its defense.


RED ROBIN: Sued Over Delayed Final Wage Payments to Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elder E. Cifuentes, an individual, appearing on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Red Robin International,
Inc., a Nevada corporation; and Does 1-25, Case No. RG 11598284
(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., October 4, 2011) accuses the
Defendants of routinely failing to make final wage payments within
the time limits set forth in the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff asserts that the failure of Defendants to timely pay
final wages to the Plaintiff and the rest of the Class was
willful.

Mr. Cifuentes is a former employee of Red Robin at one of its
restaurants in Alameda County.

Red Robin, a Nevada corporation, has been operating retail
restaurants in California and Alameda County under the brand name
"Red Robin Gourmet Burgers."  Mr. Cifuentes says he does not know
the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Red Robin removed the lawsuit on November 21, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Red Robin argues that the removal is proper because
the action involves 100 or more putative class members and the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest
and costs.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-
05635 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg A. Farley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 445-4024
          Facsimile: (310) 445-4109
          E-mail: GFarley@FarleyFirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Dritsas, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Sara M. Poggi, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
                  spoggi@seyfarth.com


ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Over MF Global Collapse
------------------------------------------------------
Katherina Rushton, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Royal
Bank of Scotland is facing legal action over the collapse of MF
Global after two pension funds named the bank in a court action
claiming that misleading statements were made about the broker's
$6.3 billion (GBP3.9 billion) exposure to European sovereign debt.

The IBEW Local 90 Pension Fund and the Plumbers & Pipefitters'
Local #562 Pension Fund are suing RBS, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs
in a class action lawsuit in New York, following the collapse of
the broker, Bloomberg reported.

The pension funds claim that MF Global's stock traded at
"artificially inflated prices," as a result of the banks'
misleading statements.  "While the extent of MF Global's exposure
to European sovereign debt was concealed, the defendants were able
to raise some $900 million in the offerings," they said.

The funds' case is understood to rest on a number of notes,
largely underwritten by JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

However, RBS, which is 83% owned by British tax payers, has also
underwritten a small percentage -- leaving it exposed if MF
Global's clients do not recover their money.  RBS declined to
comment.

Other defendants named in the case include Bank of America,
Deutsche Bank, Citigroup and Jeffries. MF Global executives are
also named including Jon Corzine, the former joint chief executive
of Goldman Sachs who ran the business before it failed.

MF Global filed for bankruptcy less than two weeks ago after it
took a $6.3 billion position on European government debt which was
undone by eurozone market volatility and destroyed market
confidence in MF Global.

Its 1,000 US staff worked their last day for the company on
Nov. 18, and it has been reported in Australia that the local arm
of MF Global has been closed by its administrator, Deloitte, after
no buyers could be found.

Clients of MF Global have had their money in the account frozen
for more than two weeks, with very little access to information
about when the situation might change.

They have complained that even funds held in segregated accounts
entirely separate from the broker remained frozen, disrupting many
businesses.

On Nov. 18, the administrators of MF Global UK, KPMG, said they
have finally begun to see the first return of funds to the
collapsed broker's London-based arm, and that it would return
money to customers "as soon as possible"

Its liquidator in the US has warned that there is "no assurance of
100pc return".  However, the broker is understood to have moved
hundreds of millions of dollars in customer funds to the Bank of
New York Mellon Corporation in August, meaning some of the cash
may be sheltered.


SATANDER CONSUMER: Faces Class Action for Violating SCRA
--------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for plaintiff Sergeant Charles Beard have filed a class
action complaint that alleges that Satander Consumer USA and Triad
Financial Corporation illegally and routinely repossess
automobiles belonging to active duty U.S. military personnel
without first obtaining a court order, in violation of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).  The complaint, filed in
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, also alleges
that the defendants fail to reduce the applicable interest rate to
six percent for any servicemember who provides them with
notification under Section 527 of the SCRA.  According to Sgt.
Beard's attorney, Sergei Lemberg, "While our sailors, airmen, and
Marines are exhibiting unparalleled patriotism and sacrificing so
much, unscrupulous companies are stealing their cars.  Violating
the SCRA is simply unpatriotic."

Sgt. Beard, who is in the Army National Guard, purchased a Kia
Sportage in September 2007 and began making payments to Triad
Financial.  In August 2008, Sgt. Beard was ordered to active duty
and was deployed abroad.  The suit alleges that the defendants
repossessed Sgt. Beard's Sportage in February 2009, despite his
wife telling them that her husband was on active duty and that a
court order was required to repossess the car.  A representative
of the defendants allegedly told Mrs. Beard that she would go to
jail for a stolen car if she did not return the vehicle.  Although
an Army legal assistance attorney advised the defendants that
Sgt. Beard was protected under the SCRA, the suit alleges that
they nonetheless sold his Sportage at auction, and kept both the
auction proceeds and Sgt. Beard's payments.

According to the court filing, the defendants' repossession of
Sgt. Beard's vehicle in violation of the SCRA is typical, and
therefore qualifies for class action status.  It notes that, after
reviewing many jurisdictions heavily populated by military
personnel, it was found that the defendants routinely fail to
determine whether a delinquent borrower is in the military or on
active duty.  It says, "Defendants routinely ignore
servicemembers' rights under the SCRA and wrongfully repossess
their cars without obtaining the required court orders."
Moreover, the court filing notes that the defendants routinely
charge more than the six percent interest rate allowed by the
SCRA.

Since September 11, 2001, more than one million courageous men and
women have stepped forward to defend the U.S. and its founding
principles through their military service.  Our nation has
witnessed the focus and determination of our brave men and women
in uniform -- a commitment that has cost many their limbs and
others their lives.  Serving in approximately 150 countries around
the globe, U.S. servicemembers make sacrifices on a daily basis.
Says Mr. Lemberg, "The very lives of our men and women in uniform
depend upon their ability to focus on the job at hand.  The SCRA
is meant to ensure that they aren't distracted by matters back
home."

Mr. Lemberg notes that those in the military sacrifice
tremendously for our country in the name of freedom.  The case
filing says, "It is against equity and good conscience to permit
[the] defendants to retain the ill-gotten proceeds of the
vehicle's repossession and sale and from charging illegal rates of
interest." Mr. Lemberg concludes, "We will fight on Sgt. Beard's
behalf -- and servicemembers like him -- to see that the
defendants are brought to justice."

This release references Beard v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. and
Triad Financial Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of California, Fresno Division, 1:11-cv-01815-LJO-BAM).

                 About Lemberg & Associates, LLC

The attorneys at Lemberg & Associates, LLC --
http://www.LembergLaw.com-- practice in New York, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, California, Maryland, Illinois, and
Washington, D.C. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about consumer law,
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and other relevant issues.


SIEBERT FINANCIAL: Settles "Lehman Brothers" Suit for $1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siebert Financial Corp. settled a class action lawsuit pending in
New York for $1 million, according to the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On February 23, 2009, Siebert had been named as one of the
defendants in a class action styled Lehman Brothers Securities and
ERISA Litigation, 09 MD 2017 (LAK), pending in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.  Among other
claims, the third amended complaint in the action asserted on
behalf of a class of purchasers in a public offering of
$1,500,000,000, 6.75% Subordinated Notes due 2017 (the "Notes"),
issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (the "Issuer"), and
certain smaller issuances of other securities that Siebert and
other underwriters of the Notes violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and other applicable law in that relevant
offering materials were false and misleading.  Siebert had
purchased $15,000,000 of the Notes and $462,953 of other
securities as an underwriter in the offerings.

Siebert and the other underwriters moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint on various grounds.  The Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion by an order dated July 27, 2011.  On
November 3, 2011, Siebert and the plaintiffs class agreed to
resolve all claims against Siebert in consideration of a
$1,000,000 payment by Siebert.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.  As of September 30, 2011, the Company had accrued a
$1,000,000 provision for loss to reflect the settlement.


SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Unit Continues to Defend South Carolina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Springleaf Finance Inc.'s operating entity continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit pending in South Carolina,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

In the lawsuit captioned King v. American General Finance, Inc.,
Case No. 96-CP-38-595 in the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg
County, South Carolina, filed in 1996, the plaintiffs assert class
claims against the Company's South Carolina operating entity for
alleged violations of S.C. Code Section 37-10-102(a), which
requires, inter alia, a lender making a mortgage loan to ascertain
the preference of the borrower as to an attorney who will
represent the borrower in closing the loan.  On July 29, 2011, the
Court issued an interim order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and holding that Springleaf Financial Services of
South Carolina, Inc. ("SLFSSC"), formerly American General
Finance, Inc., violated the statute.  The order states that the
class consists of 9,157 members who were involved in 5,497
transactions.  The statute provides for a penalty range of $1,500
to $7,500 per class member, to be determined by the judge.  SLFSSC
timely submitted a motion to alter, amend or reconsider the
Court's interim order on summary judgment, and that motion remains
pending.

On October 14, 2011, the Court conducted a hearing on the issues
of attorney fees and penalties.  Plaintiffs requested
approximately $68.7 million in penalties and approximately $24.5
million in attorney fees.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Court ordered the parties to submit written arguments and proposed
orders on all outstanding issues, including penalties, attorney
fees, prejudgment interest, and class notice, by November 14,
2011.  The Company says it continues to defend the case
vigorously.


STATE OF ALABAMA: Suit Says New Immigration Law Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims Alabama's harsh new immigration law
unconstitutionally denies state-required registration to mobile-
home owners who cannot prove they are legally in the United
States.  The plaintiffs say Congressman Mo Brooks personified his
state's animus against undocumented immigrants, saying, "As your
congressman, on the House floor, I will do anything short of
shooting them."

The class claims the law denies essential housing services to
Alabamans and violates federal housing and immigration policies.

Named plaintiffs, the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, the
Fair Housing Center of Northern Alabama, the Center for Fair
Housing and two John Does, sued Alabama Revenue Commissioner Julie
Magee and Elmore County Revenue Commissioner William Harper, in
Federal Court.

The Does sued on behalf of all Alabama residents who own mobile
homes and lack proof of U.S. citizenship or legal immigration
status, with a subclass of Latino homeowners.

Under Alabama law, people who own or maintain a manufactured home
must pay an annual registration fee and display a current
identification decal on the home.  Stickers must be renewed every
year by Nov. 30.  Violators face progressive fines and jail time.

But the plaintiffs say Alabama's new immigration law makes it
impossible for undocumented homeowners to register their homes and
avoid the penalties.

Section 30 of Alabama's anti-immigration law, House Bill 56,
prohibits undocumented immigrants from entering or trying to enter
into any business transaction with the state.  These broadly
defined transactions include registering a manufactured home or
applying for a permit to move a mobile home on public roads.  The
law requires the state to check the immigration status of any
person entering such transactions through federal verification
systems such as SAVE (the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements).

Penalties for noncompliance include up to 10 years in jail.

"Because of defendant Harper's policy, plaintiff Doe #1 and
plaintiff Doe #2 face an impossible quandary," the complaint
states.  "If they attempt to submit the annual registration
payment and to obtain a current identification decal as required
by Alabama Code section 40-12-255(a), and/or to obtain a moving
permit in order to move their manufactured homes out of Alabama by
traveling on public roads, they will be subject to the harsh
penalties established in HB 56 section 30(d), and they will be
denied the decal or permit for which they would be applying.  If
plaintiff Doe #1 and plaintiff Doe #2 fail to obtain a current
identification decal and/or attempt to move their manufactured
homes out of Alabama by traveling on public roads without a moving
permit, they will be subject to similarly draconian penalties
established in Alabama Code section 40-12-255(a), (j), and (l)."

Alabama passed HB 56 on June 2.  It makes it a crime for Alabama
residents to harbor, conceal, transport or rent property to
undocumented immigrants, among other things.

Opponents, including Alabama churches and the U.S. Department of
Justice, have challenged its constitutionality.

Section 30, which affects "business transactions" between a person
and the state, became effective on Sept. 28.

The plaintiffs say the law specifically targets Latino residents,
who are a majority of Alabama's foreign-born population.

"The legislative history of section 30 of HB 56 reveals a plain
legislative intent to drive those suspected of being undocumented
immigrants, and in particular minority immigrants of Latino
heritage, out of Alabama by making living conditions miserable for
them or by funneling them into deportation proceedings," the
complaint states.

It adds: "At times supporters of HB 56 have spoken in violent
terms about their desire to eradicate immigrants in Alabama.  For
example, at a town hall meeting this summer after HB 56 passed,
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks stated, in reference to his desire
to force undocumented immigrants out of Alabama, that '[a]s your
congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of
shooting them.'"

Latinos account for about 65% of Alabama's non-U.S. citizen
population, and more than 27% of all Latinos in Alabama live in
mobile homes, according to the complaint.

The Does, who live with their families in Elmore County, say the
law will force them to abandon their homes, leave behind their
jobs and church communities and pull their U.S.-citizen children
out of school.

According to the Center for American Progress, Alabama farmers,
who rely heavily on undocumented workers, have lost hundreds of
thousands of dollars because of labor shortages in the wake of HB
56.

The plaintiffs say they face increased risk of arrest and
detention if the state enforces the law.

The fair housing groups claim the law interferes with their
efforts to promote fair housing, wastes their resources, and
forces them to abandon other projects to educate the public about
the immigration bill.

"Defendants' policy of enforcing section 30 so as to refuse to
accept annual registration payments from, and to deny manufactured
home identification decals to, members of the class and subclass
has injured and will continue to injure organizational plaintiffs
Central Alabama Fair Housing Action Center, Fair Housing Center of
Northern Alabama, and Center for Fair Housing Inc.  These
plaintiffs have already diverted and will be forced to continue to
divert scarce resources away from their core activities in order
to conduct education, outreach, and advocacy on behalf of
communities throughout Alabama concerning the impact of HB 56
section 30 on immigrants who live in manufactured homes and who
face fines, penalties, and the threat of criminal prosecution if
they cannot pay their annual registration fees and receive the
required identification decals."

The plaintiffs say section 30 violates fair housing laws and the
U.S. Constitution, and usurps federal immigration law.

State officials who collect home registration fees do not have
access to federal verification systems and cannot accurately check
an applicant's immigration status, the complaint states.

What's more, the plaintiffs say, an immigrant's status is subject
to change over time.

"As a result, state and local officials are making their own
determinations about the applicants' U.S. citizenship or lawful
immigration status before allowing them to renew manufactured home
registration and are implementing section 30 in a manner expressly
at odds with HB 56."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages for
violations of the Fair Housing Act and the U.S. Constitution, and
want the state enjoined from enforcing the law.

A copy of the Complaint in Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, et
al. v. Magee, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00982 (M.D. Ala.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/22/Alabama.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary Bauer, Esq.
          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          4100 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          E-mail: mary.bauer@splcenter.org
                  samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Stephen M. Dane, Esq.
          Jamie L. Crook, Esq.
          RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
          1225 19 Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 728-1888
          E-mail: sdane@relmanlaw.com
                  jcrook@relmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org

               - and -

          Kristi L. Graunke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          233 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2150
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          E-mail: kristi.graunke@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Blvd.
          Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 674-2909
          E-mail: joaguin@nilc.org
                  tumlin@nilc.org

               - and -

          Justin B. Cox, Esq.
          ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          230 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 1440
          Atlanta, GA 30303-2721
          Telephone: (404) 523-2721
          E-mail: jcox@aclu.org

               - and -

          Foster S. Maer, Esq.
          Diana S. Sen, Esq.
          LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
          99 Hudson St., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 219-3360
          E-mail: fmaer@latinojustice.org
                  dsen@latinojustice.org

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Upholds Ruling in Buttitta's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the
ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen
County, which required Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. to pay all costs
and reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees incurred
by plaintiff Susan Buttitta, plus 8% pre-judgment interest from
Dec. 26, 2007 to June 2010.

Judges Sapp-Peterson and Simonelli entered judgment in the case on
July 28, 2011.

ACL contended plaintiff's offer was invalid because it did not
settle all claims against all defendants in this multi-defendant,
multiple-claim, joint and several liability case.

ACL also contended the judgment violated its federal and state due
process rights.  Alternatively, ACL contended the trial judge
erred by holding ACL liable for all costs and attorneys' fees from
December 2007 to June 2010 without assessing only those fees that
were compelled by ACL's non-acceptance of plaintiff's offer.

The Appellate Court held that plaintiff's offer of judgment to ACL
was valid, and ACL's due process rights were not violated.  The
Court also held that the trial judge correctly found ACL to be
liable for, and correctly calculated, all of the costs and
reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees incurred by
plaintiff beginning ninety days from service of the offer of
judgment, plus 8% prejudgment interest from the date of completion
of discovery.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Luk Clutch Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, issued split rulings in an asbestos case styled Luk
Clutch Systems, LLC, Plaintiff v. Century Indemnity Company, et
al., Defendants.

District Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. entered judgment in Case No.
5:09-CV-2415 on July 26, 2011.

In Plaintiff's amended complaint, Luk Clutch Systems, LLC sought
declaratory judgment regarding the scope and extent of coverage
provided by four insurance policies insuring Luk Clutch with
respect to asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

Presently pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment.  Defendant MTD Products, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment on the subjects of number of occurrences, non-
cumulation of liability and combined single occurrence limit had
been joined by the three Defendant insurance companies.

Luk Clutch filed its own motion for summary judgment and opposed
Defendants' motion.  Defendants opposed Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and replied to Plaintiff's opposition to
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.  Lastly, Plaintiff filed
a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment.

Luk Clutch's motion was granted in part and denied in part and
Defendants' motion is denied.  Specifically, the Court found that
there are multiple occurrences under the language of the Policies
and that the combined single limit provisions limit Defendant
insurance companies liability to a total of US$12 million on all
four policies (US$6 million on the 1985 policies and US$6 million
on the 1986 policies).

Given the finding of multiple occurrences under the terms of all
four policies, the Court did not need to resolve the non-
cumulation of liability provision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Summary Judgment in 3 Cases Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
MeadWestvaco Corporation's motions for summary judgment in three
asbestos-related cases.

These cases are styled Richard Archer v. Mead Corporation, et al.;
Alfred McGuffie v. Mead Corporation, et al.; and Rebekkah Riggs v.
Mead Corporation, et al.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
Nos. 09-cv-70093, 09-cv-70095, and 09-cv-70094 on July 29, 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $6MM Expense in 3rd Qtr.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded US$6 million of
expense related to asbestos claims in the third quarter of 2011
and 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

The Company recorded US$2 million in the third quarter of 2011 and
US$3 million in the third quarter of 2010 as income related to
probable insurance recoveries.  The Company recorded US$17 million
in the third quarter of 2011 and US$18 million in the third
quarter of 2010 as expense related to asbestos claims.

The Company recorded US$6 million in the first nine months of 2011
and US$4 million in the first nine months of 2010 as income
related to probable insurance recoveries.

Akron, Ohio-based The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures
tires.  The Company has a global footprint with 54 manufacturing
facilities in 22 countries, including the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Facing 82,800 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 82,800 pending asbestos-
related claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with 83,700 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded
1,700 new claims filed and 2,600 claims settled or dismissed.
Payments were US$13 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 1,700
new claims filed and 8,200 claims settled or dismissed.  Payments
were US$26 million.

The Company faced 82,700 pending asbestos claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12,
2011)

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities.  Typically, these
lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state
and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 93,300 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement.  The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$378 million through Sept. 30, 2011 and US$365 million through
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$130
million at Sept. 30, 2011 and US$126 million at Dec. 31, 2010.  At
Sept. 30, 2011, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by about US$10 million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$69 million as of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$67 million as of Dec.
31, 2010.  The Company expects that about 50% of asbestos claim
related losses would be recoverable through insurance through the
period covered by the estimated liability.

Of these amounts, US$9 million at Sept. 30, 2011 and US$8 million
at Dec. 31, 2010 were included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable.

The Company said it believes that, at Sept. 30, 2011, it had about
US$170 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products
claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance
policies.

Some of these excess policies provide for payment of defense costs
in addition to indemnity limits.  A portion of the availability of
the excess level policies is included in the US$69 million
insurance receivable recorded at Sept. 30, 2011.  The Company also
had about US$14 million in aggregate limits for products claims,
as well as coverage for premise claims on a per occurrence basis,
and defense costs available with its primary insurance carriers
through coverage-in-place agreements at Sept. 30, 2011.

Akron, Ohio-based The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures
tires.  The Company has a global footprint with 54 manufacturing
facilities in 22 countries, including the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand's Sept. 30 Liability at $953.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company's asbestos-related
liabilities totaled US$953.4 million as of Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$1.020 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

Total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries
were US$319.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with
US$346.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries were US$2.7 million for
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$1.3
million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries were US$10.9 million for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$12.7
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts.  In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.

The vast majority of those claims has been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane and generally
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily
pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.  Neither IR-New Jersey
nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however,
some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing
components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party
suppliers.

At Dec. 31, 2010, over 90% of the open claims against the Company
were non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on
inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have
little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in
light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of
such claims.

The Company records certain income and expenses associated with
its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries
within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold in 2000.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers, including the New Jersey litigation.  The
settlements collectively account for about 95% of its recorded
asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of Sept. 30,
2011.

Dublin-based Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company is a
diversified, global company that provides products, services and
solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and
buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure
homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial
productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Litigation v. Trane Dismissed in August
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company says that, by order entered
on Aug. 3, 2011, the court in the New Jersey litigation dismissed
the last remaining claims by or against Trane, a Company unit,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

In April 1999, Trane filed an action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower layer
excess insurance carriers (the NJ Litigation).  The NJ Litigation
originally sought coverage for environmental claims and later was
expanded to include claims for coverage for asbestos-related
liabilities.

The environmental claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation
have been resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later
resolution.  Similarly, Trane has resolved all claims against the
insurers for asbestos-related liabilities, having settled with the
last remaining defendant in the NJ Litigation, effective June 29,
2011.

Dublin-based Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company is a
diversified, global company that provides products, services and
solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and
buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure
homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial
productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Pursues Coverage Litigation in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company's Trane subsidiary remains
in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November 2010 in
the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wis., relating to claims
for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's historical
asbestos-related liabilities.

Trane also is pursuing claims against the estates of insolvent
insurers in connection with its costs for asbestos bodily injury
claims.

Dublin-based Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company is a
diversified, global company that provides products, services and
solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and
buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure
homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial
productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Named in Aaron Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to be subject to asbestos
litigation styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company
et al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones County,
Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of
their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name as defendants certain TODCO subsidiaries and
certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may
owe indemnity, and other unaffiliated defendant companies,
including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related
products containing asbestos that are the subject of the
complaints.  The number of unaffiliated defendant companies
involved in each complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors used
asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land
based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling
rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on
negligence and strict liability, and claims authorized under the
Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by
plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served against
specific defendants.

About 700 questionnaires were returned and the remaining
plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply, have had
their suits dismissed without prejudice.  Of the respondents,
about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and its former
parent which could lead to claims against either company, even
though many of these plaintiffs did not state in their
questionnaire answers that the employment actually involved
exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim
as identified in the questionnaire answers.  Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.  To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as
a defendant in their amended complaints.

It is possible that some of the plaintiffs who have filed amended
complaints and have not named TODCO as a defendant may attempt to
add TODCO as a defendant in the future when case discovery begins
and greater attention is given to each individual plaintiff's
employment background.

The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible
for such claims under the Master Separation Agreement between
TODCO and its former parent.  More than three years has passed
since the court ordered that amended complaints be filed by each
individual plaintiff, and the original complaints.

No additional plaintiffs have attempted to name TODCO as a
defendant and such actions may now be time-barred.

Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. reports its business
activities in five business segments: (1) Domestic Offshore, (2)
International Offshore, (3) Inland, (4) Domestic Liftboats and (5)
International Liftboats.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,897 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2011, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,897 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 16
claims from those previously reported, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

At June 30, 2011, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging
asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 16,881
plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 40 claims from those
previously reported.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 39,043 of those
claims were dismissed, 18 were tried to defense verdicts, seven
were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 583 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary
business is the design and manufacture of arc welding and cutting
products, manufacturing a broad line of arc welding equipment,
consumable welding products and other welding and cutting
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16,000 Claims Still Pending v. BorgWarner Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had about 16,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with 17,000 claims
as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28,
2011.

The Company had about 16,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 12, 2011)

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the United States, the Company (or parties the Company
is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

The Company said it believes that its involvement is limited
because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of
automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago
and contained encapsulated asbestos.  The nature of the fibers,
the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to
believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm.

Of the 16,000 outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2011, about half
were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort
and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these
claims.

In 2011, of the 1,500 claims resolved, about 216 (14.4%) resulted
in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.  In the full year of 2010, of the 7,700 claims resolved,
only 245 (3.2%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant
by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements.  In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims.

In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the
Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered automotive systems and components primarily for
powertrain applications.  These products are manufactured and sold
worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of
light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Subject to Continental Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers are still involved in an asbestos-related
declaratory judgment action, filed in January 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and
related companies (CNA).

The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is
continuing.  CNA and the Company have entered into a settlement
agreement resolving their coverage disputes, pursuant to which CNA
will pay amounts over the next four years to the Company.  The
Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the
remaining insurers.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$181.7 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received US$81.1 million in cash and notes from insurers,
including CNA.

The net balance of US$100.6 million is expected to be fully
recovered, of which about US$30 million is expected to be
recovered within one year.  Timing of recovery is dependent on
final resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to
above or additional negotiated settlements.

At Dec. 31, 2010, insurers owed US$120.6 million in association
with these claims.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered automotive systems and components primarily for
powertrain applications.  These products are manufactured and sold
worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of
light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Accrues $57.8MM Sept. 30 Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has estimated a liability of US$57.8 million for
asbestos claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related
defense costs at Sept. 30, 2011, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

The Company has estimated a liability of US$55.2 million for
asbestos claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related
defense costs at June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12,
2011)

The Company also has a related asset of US$57.8 million to
recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers.  Insurance carrier
reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the Company's
experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date
in the declaratory judgment action.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the comparable value of the insurance asset and
accrued liability was US$50.6 million.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered automotive systems and components primarily for
powertrain applications.  These products are manufactured and sold
worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of
light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. PPG Industries
---------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc. has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2011.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC).  The Company and Corning Incorporated are each
50% shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos
claims against it, the Company PPG was one of many defendants in
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims
served on it.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Accrues $47.2MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. has US$47.2 million as of Sept. 30,
2011 and US$44.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 included in "Other
long-term liabilities," that it has accrued for costs it has
incurred for asbestos and environmental matters.

The costs were incurred primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets and penalties the Company has been or expects to be
assessed.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded
Delaware limited partnership that owns and operates crude oil and
liquid petroleum transportation and storage assets, and natural
gas gathering, treating, processing, transportation and marketing
assets in the United States of America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Corley Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Charles Corley,
et al. v. Long-Lewis, Inc., et al.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 10-61113 on July 25, 2011.

Oscar Allen Corley, the Executor of the Estate of Charles Corley,
deceased, filed the action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Ala., on May 7, 2009.  Charles Corley passed away from
mesothelioma on Oct. 3, 2009. The case was removed to the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, and it was subsequently
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL
875 on Feb. 8, 2010.

Plaintiffs seek recovery under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act.
Two separate sets of defendants filed two joint motions for
summary judgment.  The first motion concerned the one-year statute
of limitations in Alabama.  The second motion questioned whether
Alabama follows a "one-disease" or "two-disease" rule in asbestos
cases.

Plaintiffs' Objections to Magistrate Judge Rueter's Report and
Recommendation with regards to the statute of limitations issue
are overruled, because Charles Corley's last exposure to any of
the products belonging to the moving Defendants occurred on or
before 1973.  These exposures are time-barred by Alabama's pre-
1979 statute of limitations.

Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge Rueter's Report and
Recommendation regarding the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on
the one or two disease issue are overruled.  Summary judgment was
denied without prejudice since the law in Alabama is unsettled
regarding whether it is a one-disease or two-disease state.

Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Rueter's Report and
Recommendation filed on June 2, 2011, are overruled.

Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge Rueter's Report and
Recommendation is overruled.  Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied without prejudice, with leave to re-file in the
transferor court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids Denied in Vanderbilt Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied four motions of summary
judgment, in an asbestos case styled R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al.

Judge Dan J. Shaban entered ruling in Case No. X02UWYCV075007875
on July 8, 2011.

R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. commenced the present declaratory
judgment action against Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company,
Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and American International
Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) on Nov. 9, 2007.

On Feb. 3, 2009, CNA filed a third-party complaint against several
insurance companies that provided excess and/or umbrella coverage
to the plaintiff at all times relevant to the present action.  The
plaintiff in turn requested leave to amend its complaint in order
to bring direct causes of action against them.

These insurers include Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, Everest
Reinsurance Company, Westport Insurance Corporation, Employers
Mutual Casualty Insurance Company and Pacific Employers Insurance
Company (PEIC), and are the same defendants who had brought the
present motions for summary judgment (the moving defendants).

The court granted the plaintiff's request for leave to amend, and
the resulting Feb. 1, 2010 complaint was the operative version of
the complaint when the present motions were filed.  The plaintiff
had since filed a subsequent amended complaint, dated April 1,
2011, which is now the operative complaint in the present action.

The plaintiff sells chemical and mineral products, including, at
all times relevant to the present action, industrial talc.
Hartford and CNA provided the plaintiff with primary level
liability insurance coverage from 1956 to 1986.  AISLIC provided
the plaintiff with liability insurance coverage from 2003 to 2008.

The plaintiff has been named as the defendant in hundreds of
actions alleging bodily injury caused by exposure to asbestos,
silica and/or talc contained in products sold by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff initially brought the action against Hartford, CNA
and AISLIC after Hartford and CNA informed the plaintiff that they
would stop contributing to the plaintiff's defense and liability
costs and that such costs should be allocated to the plaintiff
and/or AISLIC, even though AISLIC's policies exclude coverage for
asbestos-related bodily injury actions.

The plaintiff had added the excess and/or umbrella insurers who
provided coverage at all times relevant to the present action,
including the moving defendants, because it had been informed by
Hartford and CNA that its policies with them had been exhausted or
may soon be exhausted.

The plaintiff therefore now sought a declaratory judgment that the
excess and/or umbrella insurers may not allocate any defense or
liability costs that they must pay to the plaintiff or AISLIC.

Mt. McKinley and Everest filed a motion for summary judgment, an
accompanying memorandum of law in support thereof and exhibits on
April 13, 2010.  Westport and Employers filed joinders to Mt.
McKinley and Everest's motion on May 24, 2010 and Nov. 4, 2010,
respectively.  PEIC then filed its own motion for summary
judgment, accompanied by a memorandum of law in support thereof
and exhibits, on Nov. 12, 2010.

The plaintiff then filed pleadings in opposition to the motions
including memoranda of law in support thereof and exhibits on the
following dates: Mt. McKinley and Everest's on Nov. 1, 2010 which
pleading was also directed to Westport; PEIC's on Feb. 2, 2011;
and Employers' also on Feb. 2, 2011.

All four moving defendants had filed reply memoranda and/or
exhibits: Mt. McKinley and Everest on Dec. 27, 2010; Westport
filed a joinder to Mt. McKinley and Everest's reply memorandum on
Dec. 23, 2010; Employers on Feb. 25, 2011; and PEIC on Feb. 25,
2011.  The court heard oral argument on all four motions for
summary judgment on March 14, 2011.

Accordingly, the four motions for summary judgment # 333, 371, 602
and 620 were denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sun Chemical's Summary Judgment OK'd in Dinneen
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut granted Sun Chemical
Corporation's motion for summary judgment, in an asbestos case
styled William Dinneen et al. v. A.O. Smith Corporation et al.

Judge Barbara N. Bellis entered judgment in Case No. CV095018435S
on July 1, 2011.

On April 6, 2010, William Dinneen and Donna Anderson filed an
amended complaint in the action, alleging that Mr. Dinneen was
exposed to asbestos from products associated with multiple
defendants and, as a result, the plaintiffs suffered various
damages.  Each of the defendants or their predecessors in interest
conducted business in the state of Connecticut and produced,
manufactured or distributed asbestos or products containing
asbestos.

Mr. Dinneen was exposed to asbestos-containing products with some
connection to the defendants while working in Connecticut as an
insulator in 1966-1967 and was secondarily exposed due to his
father's work as an insulator from 1949-1970.  This exposure
contributed to Mr. Dinneen's contraction of asbestos-related
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies.  As a result
of the defendants' activities, Mr. Dinneen has sustained permanent
injuries and suffered from asbestos-related ailments.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their original complaint in
this action.  The plaintiffs subsequently moved to cite in
additional parties on Oct. 30, 2008, and the subsequent amended
complaint named Sun Chemical in three counts.

On Jan. 11, 2011, Sun Chemical filed a motion for summary judgment
along with a supporting memorandum of law and a supporting exhibit
of the plaintiff's job site list.  The plaintiffs filed a
memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment with
supporting exhibits on Feb. 3, 2011.

The defendant filed a memorandum in reply with two additional
supporting exhibits on March 30, 2011.  The court heard oral
argument at short calendar on April 11, 2011.  The court allowed
supplemental briefs to be filed with respect to the defendant's
objections to the admissibility of the evidence.  Sun Chemical
filed a supplemental reply on April 18, 2011.

Sun Chemical Corporation's motion for summary judgment was
granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $1.9MM Net Claims Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related provision was
US$1,987,000 during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011, according to
a Company press release dated Nov. 2, 2011.

The Company's net asbestos-related provision amounted to
US$3,427,000 during the quarter ended June 30, 2011, compared with
US$4,044,000 during the quarter ended June 30, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

Net asbestos-related gain was US$1,665,000 during the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Net asbestos-related provision was US$4,387,000 during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2011.  Net asbestos-related gain was
US$68,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$280,340,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$307,619,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$162,584,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with
US$194,570,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Zug, Switzerland-based Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and
construction contractor and power equipment supplier delivering
technically advanced, reliable facilities and equipment.  The
Company employs about 12,000 talented professionals with
specialized expertise dedicated to serving its clients through one
of its two primary business groups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Has $1.2MM Liability at Oct. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s Leslie Controls, Inc. subsidiary
recorded current asbestos- and bankruptcy-related liabilities of
US$1,200,000 as of Oct. 3, 2011, compared with US$79,831,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2011, according to a Company press release dated Nov. 3,
2011.

Leslie recorded current asbestos and bankruptcy-related
liabilities of US$1,642,000 as of July 3, 2011.  (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 2, 2011)

Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy recoveries were US$201,000 during
the three months ended Oct. 2, 2011.  Leslie's asbestos and
bankruptcy charges were US$2,343,000 during the three months ended
Oct. 3, 2010.

Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$676,000 during
the nine months ended Oct. 2, 2011, compared with US$30,603,000
during the nine months ended Oct. 3, 2010.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. designs,
manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered
products for the industrial, aerospace and energy markets.  With
more than 7,000 customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a
diversified product portfolio with recognized, market-leading
brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is still named as a defendant in
various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of
third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and
benzene while working at refineries previously owned by acquired
companies.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2011.

The Woodlands, Tex.-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores
for, develops, produces, and markets natural gas, crude oil,
condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs).  The Company also
engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of natural gas,
and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Still Has $1.09-Bil. Sept. 30 Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$1.09 billion as of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$1.10 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

Net of reinsurance recoverables, these reserves were US$536
million as of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$555 million as of Dec. 31,
2010.

About 60% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as
of both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, respectively, were for
incurred but not reported estimated losses.

The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer.  Its
Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
U.S.  The Company is based in Northbrook, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Still Has 7,500 Claims in Seven States
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. says its Fairmont Supply Company unit -- a
distributor of industrial supplies -- currently is named as a
defendant in about 7,500 asbestos-related claims in state courts
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Texas
and Illinois.

This number has been reduced from the 22,500 pending claims that
were previously reported after a review of the dockets where these
cases are pending found that about 15,000 cases had been dismissed
by administrative order, without the payment of any damages or
settlement amounts.

Since a small percentage of products manufactured by third parties
and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos
and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed
by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it
has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases
actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually
exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought
protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases.

Canonsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining company
with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern
and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and produces about
59 million tons of coal annually.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $9MM Obligation at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation says the aggregate carrying amount of
conditional asset retirement obligations was US$9 million at
Sept. 30, 2011 and US$9 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company has recognized conditional asset retirement
obligations related to asbestos encapsulation as a result of
planned demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing and
administrative sites in the United States.

The discount rate used to calculate the Company's asset retirement
obligations was 1.78% at Sept. 30, 2011 and 1.78% at Dec. 31,
2010.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.  It also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 30 Claims v. Union Carbide Drop to 54,311
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 54,311 unresolved asbestos claims
at Sept. 30, 2011, compared with 63,472 claims at Sept. 30, 2011,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

The Company faced 57,957 unresolved asbestos claims at June 30,
2011, compared with 66,090 claims at June 30, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 26, 2011)

At Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded 6,050 claims filed; 14,321
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 16,761 claims
against both the Company and Amchem Products, Inc.; and 37,550
individual claimants.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 5,525 claims filed; 17,083
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 19,844 claims
against both the Company and Amchem; and 43,628 individual
claimants.

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades.  These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on Company premises, and the Company's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against Amchem -- a former Company
subsidiary.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.  It also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $58MM Sept. 30 Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded asbestos-related defense costs
of US$58 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011 and
Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

The Company recorded defense costs of US$28 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$36 million during the
six months ended June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26,
2011)

Asbestos-related resolution costs were US$38 million during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$40 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Aggregate costs to date as of Sept. 30, 2011 were US$832 million
for defense costs and US$1.561 billion for resolution costs.

The Company expenses defense costs as incurred.  The pretax impact
for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$30
million in the third quarter of 2011 (US$22 million in the third
quarter of 2010), and US$58 million in the first nine months of
2011 (US$58 million in the first nine months of 2010) and was
reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of
income.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.  It also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Pursuing Coverage Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation continues to pursue its asbestos-related
insurance litigation filed in New York court.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (Insurance
Litigation).

The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place with the Company regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an
orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and
to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Since the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements
with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation,
including settlements reached with two significant carriers in the
fourth quarter of 2009.  The Insurance Litigation is ongoing.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.  It also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide's Sept. 30 Receivables at $236MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivables for asbestos-related costs
totaled US$236 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$298
million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 1, 2011.

The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was US$50 million at Sept. 30, 2011 and US$50
million at Dec. 31, 2010.

At Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
the asbestos-related liability, the Company had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.  It also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Pending v. IDEX, Six Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.  To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by
insurance, subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts.

Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.  No provision has been made in the
financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance
deductibles in the ordinary course.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety
and other diversified products built to its customers'
specifications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Rogers Rise to 228 at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation says there were about 228 pending asbestos
claims, as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with about 194 pending
claims at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 1, 2011.

There were about 213 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2011,
against the Company.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Of the 228 claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2011, about 59 claims do
not specify the amount of damages sought, about 166 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (less than 2% of the
total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these three claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive
damages of US$20 million each; one claim alleges compensatory
damages of US$65 million and punitive damages of US$60 and one
claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million
each.  These three claims name between 10 and 109 defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants.  The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.  For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company was
able to have 87 claims dismissed and settled 5 claims.  For the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, 163 claims were dismissed and 20 were
settled.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.  Those settlements totaled about
US$1 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared
with US$4.9 million during the first nine months of 2010 and about
US$5.5 million for the full year 2010.

Rogers, Conn.-based Rogers Corporation produces specialty
materials and components that enable high performance and
reliability of consumer electronics, power electronics, mass
transit, clean technology, and telecommunications infrastructure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Incurs $339MM Losses at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc.'s net incurred asbestos and
environmental losses were US$339 million during the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$2 million during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company press release
dated Nov. 4, 2011.

Net incurred A&E losses were US$341 million during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$5 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Boston-based Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc. is a diversified
global insurer and third largest property and casualty insurer in
the U.S. based on 2010 net written premium.  The Company also
ranks 82nd on the Fortune 100 list of largest corporations in the
United States based on 2010 revenue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Handyman Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Rogers, a handyman from Birmingham, England, has been
prosecuted after releasing asbestos fibers while refurbishing a
kitchen at a flat in Solihull, according to a Health and Safety
Executive press release dated Nov. 7, 2011.

Inspectors from the HSE found Mr. Rogers, a carpenter and general
handyman, had removed partition walls containing asbestos
insulating board at the premises in Masons Way, Olton, on Jan. 27,
2011.

Solihull Magistrates' Court heard Mr. Rogers had wrongly assumed
he was dealing with asbestos cement, which does not require
specialist contractors to remove it, and went ahead with the job.
As a result, both he and the tenant, who has asked not to be
named, were potentially exposed to asbestos dust.

Mr. Rogers spread asbestos debris in the kitchen and on the
communal stairs and loaded the removed pieces of asbestos
insulating board into his car.  By law, it should have been
disposed of by an approved carrier of asbestos waste.

The incident was discovered when a licensed asbestos removal
contractor, who was working elsewhere in the building, spotted
pieces of asbestos outside and alerted HSE.  The court heard the
area and Mr. Rogers' car had to be decontaminated.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE principal inspector Jo Anderson
said, "Tradespeople are highly likely to come across asbestos at
some point in their career.  They must make sure they are properly
trained so that they can identify it and know what to do next and
there is a wealth of guidance available on HSE's website to help
them.

"If they have not checked what kind of asbestos is present and
they have not been trained to work with asbestos, they must not
start work.

"The landlord had told William Rogers that the walls contained
asbestos, yet he went ahead with the refurbishment without
carrying out any checks.  The tenant now has to live with the
knowledge that he is at risk of developing a serious lung disease
in years to come through no fault of his own.

"It is against the law for anyone to remove asbestos insulating
board without a license.  Mr. Rogers should never have disturbed
this material, and he left a significant amount of asbestos debris
in the building.

"It is fortunate that a licensed contractor alerted us to the
incident on the day and as a result the contamination was dealt
with promptly."

William Rogers, of Rowlands Way, Yardley, pleaded guilty on
Nov. 7, 2011 to breaching Regulation 5 and Regulation 11(1)(a) of
the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.  He was fined GBP600 and
ordered to pay GBP1,799 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mytholmroyd Woman's Death Related to Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court heard that the death of 72-year-old Mabel Midgley, a
housewife from Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire, England, was related
to exposure to asbestos, the Hebden Bridge Times reports.

Mrs. Midgley inhaled the asbestos from the nearby Acre Mill, while
attending Old Town Primary School, where boys would "throw it
around like snow balls."  She said in a video statement before she
died, "I remember the school was covered in white dust, which
could only have been asbestos.

"I remember it would be quite dusty in the playground when we
played there.  I remember seeing asbestos in the gutters and
fluffy white bits of asbestos in the air.  They boys would make
snow balls out of asbestos and would throw them around."

Mrs. Midgley was born in Todmorden in 1938 and moved to Olden
Town, Hebden Bridge, when her father got a job in the area.  She
attended Old Town Primary School between 1945 and 1949 where she
inhaled dust that was omitted from an extractor fan at the nearby
mill.

Mrs. Midgley's husband, Keith Midgley, described his wife as
"family orientated" and said that her father warned his children
of the dangers of asbestos.

Mr. Midgley said that Mrs. Midgley had been diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma around a year ago and often had a shortage
of breath.  He said that she went into the Overgate Hospice for
pain relief around seven weeks before she died, on April 11, 2001,
and came home for her final week.

Coroner Roger Whittaker recorded that the cause of death was
industrial disease.

The former Cape Asbestos at Acre Mill opened in 1939 and
manufactured asbestos products.  It closed in the 1970s and scores
of people have suffered health problems as a result of its legacy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dominion Fined $12,600 for Violations at Surry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Virginia Power was ordered to pay US$12,600 after 12
contract employees were exposed to asbestos at Surry Power Station
in Surry, Va., the Daily Press reports.

A state Department of Labor and Industry report says Dominion did
not tell employees "the location and quantity of all asbestos,
exposing contractors and subcontractors to asbestosis and
mesothelioma."

The DLI report, obtained by the Daily Press under the Freedom of
Information Act, also faults Dominion for failing to properly
label pipes containing asbestos.  Each citation carries a US$6,300
fine.

Dominion spokesman Richard Zuercher said the Company, a subsidiary
of Richmond-based Dominion Resources, will appeal the fines.

The incident occurred in April 2011 as contractors made repairs to
the aging nuclear power plant.  Asbestos particles were found on
12 contractors' clothes and in three work trailers after they cut
into a pipe inside the plant, additional state reports say.

A Dominion employee who wrote the subcontractors' work plans told
a state investigator that he "was under the assumption all the
asbestos had been abated and that he did not list asbestos as one
of the hazards to be aware of in the contractors (sic) packages,"
state reports say.

In a statement issued on Nov. 8, 2011, Mr. Zuercher noted that
Dominion removed asbestos from parts of plant two years ago.  He
suggested the contractors cut pipes they were not supposed to be
working on.

The statement said, "The asbestos-containing insulation on the
pipes and equipment that were within the scope of work on this
project had been removed in 2009."

Dominion determined the exposure did not exceed limits set by the
federal government and at no time was the safety of the workers or
their families at risk, the statement said.

However, asbestos awareness advocates say that is not true.  Dr.
Arthur Frank, chairman of Drexel University's Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health, previously said any
exposure to asbestos increases the risks of developing
mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.

Dominion is the second company faulted for its role in the
incident.  The state fined Hopewell-based Quality Specialties
US$4,900 for not properly labeling the pipes.  It is appealing the
fine.

Both companies are scheduled to meet separately with labor
department officials.  The two sides will decide jointly whether
to reduce, nullify or leave the fine unchanged, said Jennifer
Wester, a department spokeswoman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halifax Veteran's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 75-year-old John Walsh, a World
War Two veteran from Halifax, West Yorkshire, England, was related
to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Halifax Courier reports.

The inquest into Mr. Walsh's death heard how he stuffed a
handkerchief into his mouth to protect himself while moving large
amounts of asbestos during his 23 years at John Crossley Carpets
Ltd, Halifax.

Mr. Walsh, who died from bronchial pneumonia at Calderdale Royal
Hospital on April 23, worked at the firm from 1959 to 1982.  He
also served in the Royal Navy for three years during World War Two
and helped transport wounded soldiers on the beaches of Normandy,

Coroner Roger Whittaker ruled that Mr. Walsh's ability to fight
the bronchial pneumonia was weakened by his exposure to asbestos
while he worked at Crossley's.  Mr. Walsh's family is currently
pursuing damages against the now-defunct company's insurance firm
and their solicitor Dominic Collingwood read out a statement on
their behalf.

The case against Crossley's was pending when Mr. Walsh died.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mazenko Case v. 66 Firms Filed in St. Clair Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert and Darla Mazenko, on Nov. 3, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 66 defendant corporations in St. Clair County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In their complaint, the Mazenkos allege the defendant companies
caused Mr. Mazenko to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.  The complaint
does not indicate where the couple resides.

Mr. Mazenko worked as a boiler tender in the U.S. Navy from 1957
until 1961, worked as a bundler, forklift and crane operator at
U.S. Steel from 1961 until 1972 and worked as an equipment
operator from 1971 until 2002, the suit states.

In their 10-count complaint, the Mazenkos seek a judgment of more
than US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$150,000, compensatory
damages of more than US$100,000, punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish the defendants and other relief the court
deems just.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Mazenkos in Case
No. 11-L-622.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Settles Veraldo Case in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. announced that a sizable
settlement has been paid to Robin Veraldo, the widow of a
Montvale, N.J., man who died from peritoneal mesothelioma cancer
(docket L-4883-09 AS, Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior
Court), according to a Weitz & Luxenberg press release dated
Nov. 10, 2011.

The settlement -- reached midway through trial -- was negotiated
by Weitz & Luxenberg's Cherry Hill, N.J., mesothelioma attorneys
on behalf of Mrs. Veraldo.  The amount of the settlement was not
disclosed, but the New York-based law firm described it as
"substantial."

Mrs. Veraldo sued as executrix of the estate of her late husband,
Randy Veraldo.  He was 52 when he died in 2009, seven months after
being diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma cancer, court records
show.

According to those documents, Mr. Veraldo was a parts handler at a
Teterboro, N.J., warehouse from 1978-85.  The job required him to
unpack clutch plates delivered on a near-daily basis from various
suppliers.

The clutch plates were said to contain asbestos, a mineral once
widely used in the U.S. as a cheap insulating material until it
was found to cause mesothelioma cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsford Local Pleads Guilty to Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul, Jr. announced on Nov. 7, 2011,
that 38-year-old Kenneth J. Horan, of Pittsford, N.Y., pleaded
guilty to violating the Clear Air Act and National Emission
Standards applicable to asbestos, according to U.S. Department of
Justice press release dated Nov. 7, 2011.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a
US$250,000 fine, or both.  Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Field,
who is handling the case, stated that Mr. Horan supervised a
renovation project in October 2009 for a commercial building
located at 4366 Culver Road, in the Town of Irondequoit.

Although the defendant knew that the project required him to
remove materials containing friable asbestos, a hazardous
substance and carcinogen, Mr. Horan failed to comply with legally-
required safety measures for removing such toxic material.

U.S. Attorney Hochul said, "Those involved in any remediation or
renovation project have an obligation to follow the federal
environmental health laws.  Ignoring regulations that are in place
to protect the public can endanger the lives of those working on a
project as well as those who work and live nearby."

The plea is the culmination of investigative efforts by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division,
under the direction of Special Agent-In-Charge, William V.
Lometti, and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Police, under the direction of Captain David Bennett.

Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before
Judge Larimer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney-Client Relationship Debunked in CSX Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp, on Nov. 9, 2011, ruled that
CSX Transportation can contact former clients of Pittsburgh
asbestos lawyer Robert Peirce, Esq., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Judge Stamp wrote that the firm does not maintain an attorney
client relationship with them.  CSX seeks evidence from former
employees that Mr. Peirce represented, for its civil fraud and
racketeering suit against Mr. Peirce and associates Mark Coulter,
Esq., and Louis Raimond, Esq.

Judge Stamp allowed contacts not only with former clients but also
with current clients pursuing third party claims against other
businesses and bankruptcy trusts.  He also ruled that no one from
the Peirce firm can represent former clients or current third-
party clients at depositions.  He disqualified the entire firm due
to conflict of interest.

CSX started contacting former clients earlier in 2011 after Judge
Stamp reopened the case at the direction of Fourth Circuit
appellate judges in Richmond, Va.  He had ruled that a statute of
limitations ran out on CSX, but Fourth Circuit judges decided that
CSX could fix the problem by amending the complaint.

In April 2011, Mr. Peirce asked Judge Stamp to prohibit contacts
with clients.  CSX asked for a hearing in May 2011, but Judge
Stamp reached a decision without a hearing.

Judge Stamp wrote that CSX claims the Peirce Firm orchestrated a
scheme to inundate CSX and others with thousands of asbestos cases
without regard to their merit.  He wrote that the claims are
separate and distinct from third party asbestos claims and claims
against CSX.

Judge Stamp wrote that it authorizes the firm to represent the
client only in a claim for damages from asbestos exposure.  He
rejected Mr. Peirce's argument that former clients might bring
claims in the future.

Judge Stamp has set trial for December 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ALU Raises Concern Over Products With Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 2011, the Associated Labor Union appealed to the
Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources to
conduct an inspection of toxic wire gauzes sold in Rizal Avenue,
Manila and impose safety product labeling to warn the public of
its asbestos content, the Manila Bulletin reports.

ALU said eight stalls of hospital and medical supplies along Rizal
Avenue were found openly selling unlabeled wire gauzes, which are
feared to contain toxic asbestos.  Each wire gauze costs PHP15 to
PHP35.

ALU policy advocacy officer Alan Tanjusay said most schools in the
country purchase wire gauzes from these stores in Rizal Avenue.

ALU national vice-president Gerard Seno appealed for inspection of
all asbestos-containing wire gauzes "for serious violation of
labeling and handling provisions of the Chemical Control Order for
asbestos and require its local or foreign manufacturers for safety
label."

The CCO for asbestos was issued in 2000 by the DENR to control and
regulate the hazardous effect that asbestos pose to the
population.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Records $3.98MM Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s asbestos abatement liability
amounted to US$3,976,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with
US$3,871,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

Foothill Ranch, Calif.-based Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. is a
holding company that owns subsidiaries that operate long-term care
facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute care services,
with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty medical care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Still Subject to Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company and its operations are parties to
lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including
product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and
intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental,
antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters.

No significant asbestos matters were discussed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company's operating
segments include its CASPI (coatings, adhesives, specialty
polymers, and inks), Specialty Plastics (engineering polymers),
and Fibers (acetate tow and textile fibers) units.  The largest
segment manufactures Performance Chemicals and Intermediates
(PCI). The Company's products go into such items as food and
medical packaging, films, and toothbrushes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Appeals Court Grants Writ in Beeson Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st District),
conditionally granted a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case
involving asbestos styled John S. Beeson, Individually and as
Trustee, Relator.

Judges Radack, Sharp and Brown entered judgment in Case No. 01-11-
00166-CV on Aug. 4, 2011.

This was an original proceeding challenging the trial court's
order requiring Realtor, John S. Beeson to produce certain tax
returns.

In the underlying lawsuit, real-party-in-interest The Alta Fay and
Eugene R. Fant Children's Trust of 1978 Number One sued Mr. Beeson
(the owner of real property abutting property owned by the Trust),
alleging that Mr. Beeson has failed to properly remove and
remediate asbestos contamination on his property.  The Trust
contends that runoff from Mr. Beeson's property is contaminating
its property, and it seeks an injunction as well as actual and
exemplary damages.

The Trust served Mr. Beeson with requests for production that
included a request for all of his "filed tax returns for the past
10 years."  Mr. Beeson responded with the objection that this
request "seeks information that is protected by the Defendant's
privacy rights established by the constitutions of the State of
Texas and the United States of America."

The Trust filed a motion to overrule Mr. Beeson's objection and
compel production of the returns.  The Trust argued that Mr.
Beeson's privacy objection "has no merit as the parties have
already agreed to the terms of a Protective Order."

The trial court entered an order compelling production of Mr.
Beeson's tax return for "tax year 2009 and ensuing tax years."
The court also entered a protective order restricting the
disclosure of any confidential information disclosed in discovery,
and limiting its use to "solely for the purpose of preparation and
trial of this litigation."

Mr. Beeson filed a motion to stay the trial court's order of
production, which the Appeals Court granted, and a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus requesting that the Appeals Court directed the
trial court to vacate its order requiring Mr. Beeson to produce
his tax returns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Yaron Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled United States of
America v. Michael Yaron, Moshe Buchnik, Santo Saglimbeni, Emilio
a/k/a "Tony" Figueroa, Cambridge Environmental & Construction
Corp., d/b/a National Environmental Associates, Oxford
Construction & Development Corp., and Artech Corp., Defendants.

Judge George B. Daniels entered judgment in Case No. S2-10-CR-363
(GBD) on July 28, 2011.

Defendants Michael Yaron, Cambridge Environmental & Construction
Corp. (d/b/a National Environmental Associates) and Oxford
Construction & Development Corp. (collectively the "Yaron
Defendants"), Santo Saglimbeni and Artech Corp. (collectively the
"Saglimbeni Defendants"), and Defendants Moshe Buchnik and Emilio
a/k/a "Tony" Figueroa move:

-- To dismiss all Counts of the Superseding Indictment for
   failure to allege a federal offense;

-- To dismiss Count Two of the Superseding Indictment as barred
   by the statute of limitations;

-- To sever various Counts and defendants;

-- For a bill of particulars; and

-- To compel an early disclosure of witness statements and
   statements the Government intends to use at trial.

On April 27, 2010, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment
charging the Yaron and Saglimbeni Defendants, as well as Buchnik
and Figueroa, with conspiracies and fraud related charges.  The
Original Indictment charged defendants with two conspiracies to
defraud New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH): one relating to the
award of asbestos removal, air monitoring and construction
contracts (Asbestos/Construction Conspiracy), and another relating
to the award of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
contracts (HVAC Conspiracy).

The Government superseded the indictment on Oct. 26, 2010.  The
Superseding Indictment: (1) added, to each Count, a charge of
"honest services" fraud; (2) added Figueroa to the
Asbestos/Construction conspiracy charged in Count One; and (3)
added aiding and abetting as an alternate theory of liability to
Counts Two and Four.

Defendants' motions to dismiss Counts One through Four of the
Superseding Indictment for failure to allege a federal criminal
offense were denied.

Defendants' motions to dismiss Count Two of the Superseding
Indictment as time-barred were denied.

Defendants' motions to sever Counts One and Two from Counts Three
and Four were granted.

The Saglimbeni Defendants' motion to sever Figueroa from Counts
One, Three and Four was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Ruling in Certified Environmental
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, issued
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled United States of
America v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc.; Nicole
Copeland; Elisa Dunn; Sandy Allen; and Frank Onoff; Defendants.

District Judge Hurd entered judgment in Case No. 09-CR-319 on
Aug. 1, 2011.

Aapex Environmental Services, Inc. and Paragon Environmental
Construction, Inc. were asbestos abatement contractors that
sometimes contracted with CES to perform air monitoring at its
asbestos abatement projects.

Aapex and Paragon failed to comply with federal and state laws
regulating asbestos removal.  In other words, they removed
asbestos without complying with statutory and regulatory
requirements for doing so safely (such as properly stripping,
removing, bagging, containing, transporting, and disposing of
asbestos), commonly referred to as "rip-and-run."

Aapex pled guilty to an information charging two counts:
conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
related to asbestos rip-and-run activities from 1996 through the
date of the plea agreement (June 2008) and mail fraud related to
providing false information in order to fraudulently obtain low
interest rates.  The government and Aapex agreed to a restitution
amount of US$75,000.

Paragon pled guilty to a single-count information charging
conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act related to asbestos rip-
and-run activities from 1999 through the present (November 2008).
The government and Paragon agreed to a restitution amount of
US$12,345.00.

Proper air sampling techniques and laboratory analysis, in
accordance with federal and state laws, are designed to detect the
presence of asbestos fibers at the completion of an asbestos
removal project, to assure that asbestos has been completely
removed and the area is safe.  However, improper sampling
techniques and laboratory analysis as were performed by CES
permitted illegal rip-and-run offenses such as those committed by
Aapex and Paragon to remain undetected (at least for a time).

CES, in addition to other laboratory services, conducted air
sampling and performed laboratory analysis related to asbestos
abatement projects.  Co-defendant Barbara Duchene was a part owner
of CES, its Vice President of Laboratory Operations, and its
Laboratory Manager.  The government dismissed the Indictment as
against Ms. Duchene when she pled guilty to a state misdemeanor
charge.

Ms. Copeland was employed by CES beginning in 1998 and throughout
the relevant time period except for six months in 1999-2000 when
she worked for another company.  She became a supervisor for CES
in 2000.  Her responsibilities included oversight of air
monitoring conducted for asbestos abatement projects.  She
directed other CES employees, including Dunn and Allen, to conduct
certain air monitoring functions and was responsible for the use
of required techniques for sample-taking and documentation in
order to assure that the monitoring results were accurate.

However, with regard to the offenses at issue here, Ms. Copeland
directed CES employees to conduct air monitoring without following
the requirements for doing so safely, enabling such air monitoring
to be done much more rapidly and in such a manner as to provide
results that did not reveal the rip-and-run asbestos removal done
by the abatement contractors Aapex and Paragon.

With regard to the sites for which restitution is sought, Ms.
Copeland was involved with WSTM, Tulip Street, Rothchild, Raymour
& Flanagan, Kellogg Library, Alpha Chi, Kappesser Street, and
Oneonta Job Corps.

Dunn was hired by CES in April 2006.  She was a supervisor of air
monitoring for CES and also performed air monitor sampling.  She
reported to Ms. Copeland and others.  With regard to the offenses
at issue here, Dunn performed the duties of an air monitoring
technician.  Dunn performed air monitoring and documentation at
Alpha Chi and the Flower Shop.

Mr. Allen was an air technician for CES.  He has been employed by
CES since 1992.  He performed air monitoring and documentation at
WSTM, Court Street, and Seneca Bank.  Mr. Onoff was a supervisor
on asbestos abatement projects for Paragon, although sometimes he
did the work of a laborer.  He has been employed by Paragon since
1999.  He was a supervisor on the Raymour & Flanagan, Kellogg
Library, and Kappesser Street projects.

As the government accepted US$87,345.00 as the total amount of
loss sustained by the victims of the offense convictions of Aapex
and Paragon, it is precluded from now claiming that the loss
sustained was US$644,639.11.  The total loss sustained by
Alpha Chi was US$4,919.56.

The total amount of loss sustained by SU/EPS as a result of the
offenses of conviction was US$24,837.40.  Multiple defendants
contributed to the losses sustained by the victims.


                           *********

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  * * *