CAR_Public/111209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 244

                             Headlines

ANADIGICS INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
APPLE REIT: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Class Suit
AVIAT NETWORKS: "Dutton" Securities Class Suit Dismissed in Oct.
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Mortgage Securities Class Action
BB&T CORP: Appeals in Customer Checking Accounts Suits Are Pending

BIGBAND NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suits
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO Suit in New York
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Dismissed
CARRIER IQ: Faces Twelve Class Actions Over Phone Spying Device

CARRIER IQ: Accused of Illegally Intercepting Communications
CARRIER IQ: Has Been Spying on Smart Phone Users, Suit Claims
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Continues to Defend Retiree Benefits Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: IPO Class Suit Remains Pending
CITIBANK: Faces Class Action in Florida for Breach of Contract

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, CA: Sued Over Illegal Utility Tax
DEAN FOODS: Continues to Defend Tenn. & Miss. Dairy Farmer Suits
DEAN FOODS: Tenn. Retailer & Indirect Purchaser Suits are Pending
DEAN FOODS: Vermont Dairy Farmer Suit Resolved in October
DEER CONSUMER: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

DELTA AIR: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Baggage Expenses
DIGITAL GENERATION: Gets Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal
ELECTRONICS COMPANIES: Settle LCD Price Fixing Suit for $388MM
ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Unit Awaits Ruling on Zion Suit Dismissal Bid
IBERIABANK CORP: Bid for OK of Checking Acc. Suits Deal Accepted

KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Securities Suit Dismissed in October
MEDIFAST INC: Continues to Defend "Proter" Suit in Maryland
MERITOR INC: Appeal in UAW Class Suit Over Medical Plans Pending
NAUTILUS INC: Recalls 10T Schwinn Elliptical Exercise Equipment
PUREBRED BREEDERS: Sued in Florida for Selling Puppy Mill Dogs

REDLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Securities Class Action
SONY CORP: Judge Tosses Overheating TV Class Action
STEVE MADDEN: Receives Final Approval of Labor Suit Settlement
STORM FINANCIAL: Class Action Mediation Talks to Begin Next Year
TACO BELL: Faces Wage & Hour Law-Violations Suit in California

UNITED STATES: Trial for Military Drug Testing Suit Set for 2012
YAHOO: Faces Class Action Over No Cross Talk Provision

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bartonville, Ill. Tourism Project Delayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 30 Million Homes Still Have Attics With Zonolite
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contamination Hinders Property Sale in Mobile
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Case Moved to Houston MDL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMSI Finds Chrysotile in Pomonok Houses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Argue on Trial Schedule in Madison County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stafford Allotment Site Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Public High School Violates Health Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Health Dept Slaps $9T Penalty to 2 Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Nuclear Power Station Worker Dies of Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Telecomm Pays Ex-Worker Over Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: As-Pac Dragged in Chrysotile Trade Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caregiver Slams Gwynedd Council Over Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed at Surrey, Va. Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tretol Group Pays GBP200T to Ex-Worker's Widow

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Lawyer Pushes for More Funding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty. Joseph Belluck Supports Global Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grant Council Member Cited for Abatement Efforts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Extends Insurance Policy to Old Reardon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation of Gladsky Marine Site Completed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Immigrant Workers Seek Stronger Safety Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Contractor Sentenced for Contempt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Dept Declares East Providence School Safe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Slams Wording Used in Insurance Contract
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Present in Nine Suffolk Schools

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas County Grants $90T for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Way to Replace Old Asbestos Pipes Offered
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contamination Found at Harbor Square Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: YMCA Demolition in Hannibal Starts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Mesothelioma Victim Appeals for Info

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Mesothelioma Victim Pleas for Witnesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout Eyed at GBP250M If 4 Insurers Lose
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stourport Resident Succumbs to Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FM Kevin Rudd Commits AU to Lead Global Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Students Raise Concerns

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Gets More Time to Up Safety Standards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Irish Law to Compensate Affected Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Head Lord Phillips to Hear Mesothelioma Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Judge Slams Law Firm for Inaction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Wins 6th Cir. Ruling in Mesothelioma Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Exit Plan to Create $200M Trust Fund
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Hazard Bldg Tenants in Calgary Evacuated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk Schools Earmark $75T for Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Later in Life Has Low Mesothelioma Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Province Shutters Two Mines

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Asbestos Mines Shutdown Satiates Majority
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fond Du Lac Bldg Renovation Cited for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Czech Primary Schools Closed Over Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silverdell Pre-Tax Profit Up GBP2.5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Construction Firms Cited for Hazards

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arkansas Medical Center Subject to Hazard Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testimony Sought in Suit v. Texaco, Chevron
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Permit Sought for Montana Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Mexico May Sue Advantage Asphalt for Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harvey, Ill. Mall Demolition Seen by Year's End

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog's Feature on Hazards Gains EPPY Awards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Erionite Poses Mesothelioma Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Alaskan Hospital Continues to Deteriorate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rodeway Inn Demolition Delayed Over Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cochrane Offers PR Services to Envi. & IAQ Firms

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Fitness Centre's Pool to Be Closed Next Year
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Dam to Be Shuttered for Good
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrecking Firm to Demolish Ohio Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairport Harbor West Lighthouse to be Refurbished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dusti Thompson Joins CARD

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penfield Residents to Vote on School Expansion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bayer-Miles Complex Demolition Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56 Services Wins Pre-Demolition Survey Contract
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Bids for Broad Street Parkade Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Delay Sale of Magherafelt Army Base

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Lawmakers Finalize $22MM Spending Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Former Tru-Value Bldg Completed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hygieneering Wins Contract With Chicago Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homer Boys & Girls Club Extends HERC Lease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Lawyer Joins Million Dollar Advocates Forum

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Subpoena Issue Goes to Maryland Ct.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: E.D.N.Y. Court Rules on Prisoner's Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Over Worcester, Md. Home Goes to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Nixes Teacher's Claim as Time-Barred
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Estimates $51.7MM for Libby Studies

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Gets 3,750 New Claims in 9 Months in 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Faces 180 PI Cases in Maryland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Can't Estimate Obligations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes & NATCO Named in 40 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Records $1.9MM Removal Cost at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Expects Claims Filed Until 2050
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Face Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Detroit Edison Records Fermi 1 Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Asbestos-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Continues to Defend Asbestos Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Named in 15 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defending 4,445 Claims at Oct. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Unit Defending 7,877 Claims at Oct. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Still Faces Mount Vernon-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Has Nominal Reserve for Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Continues to Defend 107 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG's A&E Reserves Were $375 Million at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Boosts Asbestos Reserves by $6.2MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Had $160MM for Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Posts $0.9MM Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Records $830MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS Int'l. Still Faces Claims From Old Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Remains Exposed to Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Subject to Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Faces Underwriters' Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Defending "Antoine" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $64.5MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $13.8MM Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Contests Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy, BGE Face 484 Open Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Puts No Value to Post-June '03 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Receives 2T New Claims in 3rdQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Has $1.3MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Continues to Defend Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Says Loss Reserves Will Not Be Adjusted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits





                          *********

ANADIGICS INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a consolidated purported
securities class action lawsuit against Anadigics, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 1, 2011.

On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie
Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or
about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related
class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz
v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750 (jointly, the "Class
Actions").  The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were
consolidated under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court
dated November 24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with, among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing
capabilities and the demand for its products.  On October 23,
2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, (the "First Amended Complaint"), which names the
Company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and
alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007
through August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; that motion was
fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.  After holding extensive oral
argument on defendants' motion on August 3, 2010, the District
Court found plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient,
but afforded them another opportunity to amend their pleading.
The District Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response
to plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on
October 4, 2010.  The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the
same substantive claims that were alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, alleges a proposed class period that runs from
February 12, 2008 through August 7, 2008.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 3,
2010.  By an Opinion and an Order dated September 30, 2011, the
District Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint.  On October 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed with the
District Court a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District Court's
September 30, 2011 Opinion and Order.


APPLE REIT: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative
class action lawsuit filed by purchasers of the Company's shares,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is currently engaged in an ongoing putative class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Units --
consisting of one common share and one Series A preferred share --
of at least one of the Apple REIT Companies during June 2011.  The
complaint was amended in October 2011.

On October 10, 2011, the plaintiffs in Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, adding new parties and new claims
to the action originally filed on June 20, 2011.  The new
plaintiffs are residents of New York, Connecticut, and Florida
alleged to be investors in the Company, Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and
Apple REIT Ten, Inc.  The new defendants are directors of these
companies and Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight
Advisors, Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors,
Inc., and Apple Fund Management, LLC.  The amended complaint adds
claims on behalf of subclasses of residents of New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut and Florida, in addition to the putative
nationwide class, and no longer includes purchasers of Apple REIT
Six, Inc. and Apple REIT Seven, Inc.  The amended complaint
asserts new claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for violation
of the securities laws of the states of New Jersey, Connecticut
and Florida, and seeks certification of the subclasses, monetary
damages including pre- and post-judgment interest, equitable
relief and fees and costs.  In addition to the allegations
contained in the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges
that David Lerner Associates, Inc., and the directors breached a
fiduciary duty to the shareholders by failing to disclose material
information about the prior Apple REIT Companies' sources of
distributions and share valuation, that they aided and abetted one
another's breaches, and that the Apple REIT entities and directors
are jointly and severally liable for the acts of David Lerner
Associates, Inc.  The amended complaint also asserts that
plaintiffs are entitled to recover under certain state securities
laws.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


AVIAT NETWORKS: "Dutton" Securities Class Suit Dismissed in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Aviat Networks, Inc.'s securities was dismissed in October,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers and
directors were named in a federal securities class action
complaint filed on September 15, 2008 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk
County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from January 29, 2007 to
July 30, 2008, including stockholders of Stratex Networks, Inc.
who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the Company's
shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the
Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation ("MCD").
This action relates to the restatement of the Company's prior
financial statements as discussed in its fiscal 2008 Annual Report
on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2008.  Similar complaints were filed in the United
States District Court of Delaware on October 6 and October 30,
2008.  Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.  The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009 and a
consolidated class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009
("Dutton").  On July 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to
dismiss that the Company and the officer and director defendants
had filed.  On September 9, 2010, the Company and the officer and
director defendants filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the consolidated class action complaint.

On May 31, 2011, the Company and the other named defendants
entered into a stipulation of settlement ("Stipulation") with
respect to the Dutton action, pursuant to which the Company is to
cause $8.9 million to be paid into a settlement fund.  The entire
settlement amount is covered by insurance and has been assumed by
the insurance company.  A motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed with the Court on June 1, 2011 and the Court
issued its order preliminarily approving the settlement on
June 21, 2011.  The hearing for final approval of the settlement
took place on September 16, 2011.

The effectiveness of the Stipulation and the settlement
incorporated therein is conditioned on the following remaining
conditions:

   (i) the Company's and Harris Corporation's option to terminate
       the Stipulation if prior to the settlement hearing the
       aggregate number of shares of Aviat Network's common stock
       purchased during the class period by all class members who
       would otherwise be entitled to participate in the
       settlement but who validly request exclusion equals or
       exceeds the sum specified in a supplemental agreement
       between the parties;

  (ii) the Court entering an order of final approval of the Class
       Action settlement;

(iii) the Court entering judgment in the Class Action; and

  (iv) the judgment becoming final.

The Company said there can be no assurance that the settlement
will be approved or become effective.

The Court entered a Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
on October 11, 2011.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Mortgage Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Phil Milford, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Bank of
America Corp. (BAC) reached a $315 million settlement with a group
of investors who sued its Merrill Lynch unit claiming they were
misled about mortgage-backed securities, according to a court
filing.

Holders of the asset-backed certificates sued Merrill Lynch
starting in December 2008 for alleged "false and misleading"
prospectus statements related to the securities, according to the
complaint and a brief filed on Dec. 5 in Manhattan federal court.

The investors said that inaccurate statements were made about
qualifications of mortgage-loan borrowers, property appraisals and
debt-to-income ratios of applicants, and that "the registration
statement materially misrepresented the credit quality of the
mortgage loans underlying the certificates."

The $315 million will be distributed to certificate holders who
submit valid claim forms, plaintiffs' lawyers said in court
papers.

Lawrence Grayson, a Bank of America spokesman, said in a phone
interview that the company had no comment on the settlement.
Merrill Lynch, bought by Bank of America in 2009, said investor
losses were the result of "the overall economic downturn, housing-
price declines and reduced liquidity," according to settlement
papers.

The investors' attorneys requested a final hearing on March 21 to
approve the settlement.

The litigation included "review and analysis of more than 20
million pages of documents," David Stickney, a lawyer for the
investors, said in court papers.

The lead case is Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 08-CV-10841, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


BB&T CORP: Appeals in Customer Checking Accounts Suits Are Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order denying a class certification request in
three cases challenging BB&T Corporation's daily ordering of debit
transactions posted to customer checking accounts are pending,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in three separate cases primarily
challenging the Company's daily ordering of debit transactions
posted to customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to
2010.  The plaintiffs have requested class action treatment,
however, no class has been certified.  The court initially denied
motions by the Company to dismiss these cases and compel them to
be submitted to individual arbitration.  The Company then filed
appeals in all three matters.  There have been numerous subsequent
procedural developments, and at present the issues raised by these
motions and/or appeals remain pending.  If the motions or appeals
are granted, they would preclude class action treatment.  Even if
those appeals are denied, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses against these matters, including class certification.
Because of these appeals, and because these cases are in
preliminary proceedings and no damages have been specified, no
specific loss or range of loss can currently be determined.


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
BigBand Networks, Inc., continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits challenging its merger with ARRIS Group, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ending
September 30, 2011.

On October 10, 2011, the Company and ARRIS Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (Parent), and Amsterdam Acquisition Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
(Acquisition Sub), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the Merger Agreement).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and
upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Acquisition
Sub agreed to commence a cash tender offer to acquire all of the
shares of the Company's common stock (the Offer) for a purchase
price of $2.24 per share, net to the holder thereof in cash (the
Offer Price), without interest.

The consummation of the Offer will be conditioned on (i) at least
a majority of the sum of all shares of the Company's outstanding
common stock and shares of Company common stock issuable pursuant
to Company options that are then exercisable by their terms with a
per share exercise price less than the Offer Price having been
validly tendered into (and not withdrawn from) the Offer prior to
the expiration date of the Offer, and (ii) other customary
conditions.  The Offer is not subject to a financing condition.

On October 13, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo
(the California Court), by an alleged stockholder of BigBand
(Bernstein v. BigBand Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV509018).
Between October 18, 2011 and October 20, 2011, three additional
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the California Court
by alleged stockholders of BigBand (Naveh v. Bassan-Eskenazi, et
al., Case No. CIV509114, Schnaider v. Bassan-Eskenazi, et al. Case
No. CIV509158 and Bushansky v. BigBand Networks, Inc. et al., Case
No. CIV509188).  On October 24, 2011, the plaintiff in the Naveh
lawsuit filed an amended complaint.  On October 28, 2011 an
additional purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (Amir v. Pohl et al., Case No. 6992-
VCG).  The Amir plaintiff also filed a motion for expedited
discovery and a motion for a preliminary injunction on October 28,
2011.  The motion for expedited discovery was withdrawn, without
prejudice, on October 31, 2011.  The five lawsuits generally
allege the following: (i) that the members of the BigBand Board of
Directors (the Board) breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger; (ii) that the  Board engaged in self-
dealing in connection with the Merger; (iii) that the Board failed
to disclose material information related to the Merger to
BigBand's stockholders; (iv) that BigBand and ARRIS aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty of the Board; (v)
that the Merger consideration is unfair and inadequate; and (vi)
that the Merger is the result of an unfair and inadequate process.
All five lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the Merger and rescission of the Merger
Agreement to the extent already implemented.

The Company believes that the allegations in each of the pending
actions are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the
actions.  However, there can be no assurance that it will be
successful in its defense or that the Merger will not be enjoined.
Furthermore, pursuant to the Merger Agreement and Delaware law,
the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold
harmless and indemnify each of its directors against judgments,
fines, settlements and expenses related to claims against
directors and otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under
Delaware law and the Company's bylaws and certificate of
incorporation.  Those obligations, the Company said, may apply to
these lawsuits, and therefore an unfavorable outcome in these
lawsuits could result in substantial costs for the Company.  In
view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any,
that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe
that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate
of the possible range of loss related to this matter.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported antitrust class action lawsuit filed by shareholders
of public companies acquired by private equity firms remain
pending in a Massachusetts federal court, according to The
Blackstone Group L.P.'s November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against 16 private equity firms and investment banks,
including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).  The suit alleges that from mid-2003
defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to
rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the
prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide
up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged
buyouts.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all
persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged
buyout transactions.  The amended complaint also includes seven
purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking damages and/or
restitution and comprised of shareholders of seven companies.
Following the completion of fact discovery, plaintiffs may be
permitted to amend their complaint further to add a number of
leveraged buyout transactions.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its June 2007
initial public offering, according to the Company's November 9,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
suits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint (Landmen
Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose (a)
one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the
complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor, the Company said.  The Second Circuit did not
consider facts other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against Blueknight Energy
Partners, L.P., was dismissed following final court approval of a
settlement, according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 3, 2011, Blueknight, formerly SemGroup Energy Partners,
L.P., and its subsidiaries entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Stipulation") to settle the consolidated
securities class action litigation, In Re: SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1989-GKF-FHM
(the "Class Action Litigation"), pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  As set forth more
fully in the Stipulation, when given final approval by the court,
among other things, the shareholder class will receive a total
payment of approximately $28.0 million from the defendants.  On
June 9, 2011, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving,
subject to further consideration at a settlement hearing, the
proposed settlement pursuant to the Stipulation involving, among
other things, a dismissal of the Class Action Litigation with
prejudice.  The Court held a hearing on October 5, 2011 and
granted final approval of the proposed settlement and issued a
final judgment (the "Judgment") in accordance with the
Stipulation.  The Judgment became final on November 7, 2011.

In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Partnership recorded a
contingent loss of $20.2 million related to its portion of the
settlement and a related insurance recovery receivable of $13.0
million.  This contingent loss and insurance recovery receivable
are reflected on the Partnership's balance sheet as of
September 30, 2011.  The net loss of $7.2 million attributable to
this action was recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010.  In June
of 2011, the Partnership paid $0.5 million towards the settlement
in escrow.  This $0.5 million is reflected as a current asset on
the Partnership's balance sheet as of September 30, 2011 and will
be applied to the accrued settlement liability in October of 2011
as a result of the final approval of the proposed settlement.
Pursuant to the Stipulation and the Judgment, on October 12, 2011,
the Partnership issued and transferred 767,414 common units with a
value equal to approximately $5.2 million to lead plaintiff's
counsel in the Class Action Litigation.  The transfer of the
767,414 common units is the final payment to the class by the
Partnership required by the Stipulation and the Judgment.
Furthermore, in October of 2011, the Partnership recognized the
$13.0 million of insurance proceeds associated with the previously
recorded insurance recovery receivable when the settlement was
funded by the insurers.  No parties admit any wrongdoing as part
of the settlement.


CARRIER IQ: Faces Twelve Class Actions Over Phone Spying Device
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service report that twelve class
actions across the country claim that Carrier IQ has been "spying
on the activities" of smart phone users with a device that tracks
key strokes and sends the information to carriers such as Sprint
and AT&T.

Five class actions were filed in San Jose and Bay Area federal
courts, two in Boston, and one each in Los Angeles, Miami, St.
Louis, Chicago, and Beaumont, Texas.

Carrier IQ makes a device called IQRD, which one lead plaintiff
Rowena Silvera describes as a rootkit that allows privileged
access to a computer while hiding its presence, and subverting
standard operating system functions or other applications.

Carrier markets the device to cellphone carriers by claiming it
"can 'measure performance and user experience with no visible
impact to your customers,'" but the rootkit actually decreases
battery life and overall performance while increasing data use,
Ms. Silvera says.

The device, which customers cannot opt out of having installed on
their smart phones, records all keystrokes, including keys
pressed, apps opened, messages received, and media and location
statistics, as well as information on battery life on a supposedly
secure session, according to the complaint.

The information is transmitted to Carrier IQ's portal, and from
there is disclosed to Sprint and AT&T, the class claims.

Defendants AT&T and Sprint are carriers for smart phones made by
defendants Samsung and HTC, and the plaintiff class includes
"people who communicated with said smart phones and whose
electronic communications were intercepted by defendants Carrier
IQ . . . called IQRD, without the individual's authorization."


CARRIER IQ: Accused of Illegally Intercepting Communications
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Thomas, a Texas resident, and Benjamin Lancaster, a
Pennsylvania resident, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean company, Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., a New York corporation, and Samsung
Telecommunications America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:11-cv-05819 (N.D. Calif., December 2, 2011) alleges that Carrier
IQ created and provides software that is embedded on cellular
devices manufactured by HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and
Samsung, and touts its software as a tool for cellular carriers
and device manufacturers to improve end-user experience on
cellular devices.  The Plaintiffs assert that Carrier IQ claims
that its software does not log key-strokes and, thus, does not
intercept, store, and transfer consumer's electronic
communications to third parties, like cellular carriers and device
manufacturers.

In truth, the Plaintiffs allege, Carrier IQ software does log
keystrokes and does store and transmit to third parties detailed
information, including the content of user messages sent and
received.  The Plaintiffs contend that consumers using devices
equipped with CIQ software are not notified that the software is
actively running on their devices and have no idea that, and give
no consent for, their private communications to be intercepted,
stored, and transmitted to third parties.

Mr. Thomas is a resident of New Braunfels, Texas.  Mr. Lancaster
is a resident of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, created and provides software
that is embedded on cellular devices.  Samsung manufactures phones
and sells its products throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com


CARRIER IQ: Has Been Spying on Smart Phone Users, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rowena Silvera and Andrew Sanders, Individually, and on Behalf of
all Similarly Situated Persons v. Carrier IQ, Inc., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., HTC America Inc., AT&T, Inc., Sprint
Communications Company, L.P., John Doe Manufactures (1-10), John
Doe Carriers (1-10), Case No. 3:11-cv-05821 (N.D. Calif., December
2, 2011) is brought for the benefit of a class consisting of all
people, who have contracted with AT&T or Sprint for carrier
service for a smart phone manufactured by Samsung or HTC, and
people who communicated with said smart phones and whose
electronic communications were intercepted by a device made by
Carrier IQ called IQRD without the individual's authorization.

The Plaintiffs and the Class seek injunctive and other equitable
relief and damages arising from and caused by the Defendants'
unlawful interception of electronic communications in violation of
the Federal Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the spying device was installed and enabled
without their consent.

Ms. Silvera is a resident of Georgia and owns a Galaxy smart phone
manufactured by Samsung.  Mr. Sanders is a resident of Mississippi
and owns an Evo smart phone manufactured by HTC.

Carrier IQ, a California Corporation, designed, manufactured,
assembled, possessed, marketed, advertised and sold to the
Manufacturer and Carrier Defendants the IQRD device, which
permitted the illegal and wrongful spying activity.  Samsung, a
New York corporation, and HTC America, a Washington corporation,
manufacture smart phones that are sold throughout the United
States.  Sprint, a Delaware limited partnership, and AT&T, a
Dallas, Texas-based corporation, operate as a carrier for smart
phones and provide wireless communications services nationwide.
The John Doe Manufacturers Defendants are smart phone
manufacturers, who have installed and used IQRD on their smart
phones.  The John Doe Carriers Defendants are smart phone
carriers, who have procured the use of smart phones containing
IQRD.

A copy of the Complaint in Silvera, et al. v. Carrier IQ, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-05821 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/06/CarrierIQ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Skikos, Esq.
          Mark G. Crawford, Esq.
          SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH, LLP
          625 Market Street, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 546-7300
          Facsimile: (415) 546-7301
          E-mail: sskikos@skikoscrawford.com
                  mcrawford@skikoscrawford.com

               - and -

          Maury A. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: mherman@hhkc.com

               - and -

          Christopher V. Tisi, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          2000 L Street, NW Suite 400
          Washington, D.C., 20036
          Telephone: (202) 783-6400
          Facsimile: (202) 416-6392
          E-mail: cvtisi@aol.com

               - and -

          Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL LLP
          230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 880-9500
          Facsimile: (404) 880-9605
          E-mail: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Continues to Defend Retiree Benefits Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit challenging its decision to modify or terminate
retiree medical benefits, according to the Company's November 9,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union ("USWA"), the USWA's local union, and
four CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives,
seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree
medical benefits.  Later in November 2009, the USWA and
representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against
CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare
Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the
termination of benefits.  These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al.
v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated
and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing the changes
while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the
court.  In August 2011, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the District Court's dismissal of the USWA's motion for
preliminary injunction, finding that the USWA had failed to
establish the likelihood of success on the merits of the
underlying matter.  Based on the Company's analysis of the court's
ruling during the third quarter of 2010, in accordance with ASC
715-60, "Compensation - Retirement Plans - Defined Benefit Plans -
Other Postretirement", the amendment to the CAWV postretirement
medical plan benefits was recorded as a negative plan amendment in
the third quarter of 2010.  The Company said it intends to
continue to vigorously pursue its case.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: IPO Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising from Chesapeake Energy
Corporation's July 2008 common stock offering remains pending,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and
counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11,
2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009.  On September 2, 2010, the court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August 1, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  Discovery in
the case is proceeding.  The Company said it is currently unable
to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential
loss associated with the case.


CITIBANK: Faces Class Action in Florida for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Citibank unfairly gives credit cardholders only 60 days to dispute
a charge.

A copy of the Complaint in Dionne v. Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Case No. 2011CA019152 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Palm Beach Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/06/Citibank.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Feinmel, Esq.
          5030 Champion Boulevard
          G6-275
          Boca Raton, FL 33496
          Telephone: (561) 910-5985


CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, CA: Sued Over Illegal Utility Tax
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a hotel claims in a state
class action that the city of Santa Barbara collects an illegal
utility tax.

A copy of the Complaint in Jacks, et al. v. The City of Santa
Barbara, et al., Case No. 1383959 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa
Barbara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/06/ElecTax.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul E. Heidenreich, Esq.
          David W.T. Brown, Esq.
          HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP
          865 Manhattan Beach, Blvd., Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 545-5459


DEAN FOODS: Continues to Defend Tenn. & Miss. Dairy Farmer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits separately filed in Tennessee and Mississippi by dairy
farmers, according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company was named, along with several other defendants, in two
putative class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007.
The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege
generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid
for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade
A milk processing facilities.  Four additional putative class
action complaints were filed in 2007 and 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division.  The allegations in these complaints are similar to
those in the dairy farmer actions.  All six of the class actions
(collectively, the "dairy farmer actions") were consolidated and
were transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division.  Class certification in the dairy farmer actions was
granted in September 2010.

On July 12, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the class plaintiffs in the dairy farmer actions.  On
July 14, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee granted preliminary approval of the class-
wide settlement agreement and stayed the dairy farmer action with
respect to the Company.  Under the proposed settlement agreement,
the Company agreed to pay a total of up to $140 million over a
period of four to five years into a fund for distribution to dairy
farmer class members in a number of Southeastern states.  On
July 21, 2011, the Company made an initial payment of $60 million
into an escrow account, to be distributed following the Court's
final approval, and issued a standby letter of credit in the
amount of $80 million to support the subsequent payments due under
the agreement.  The settlement agreement calls for the Company to
make a payment of up to $20 million on each of the following four
anniversaries of the settlement agreement's final approval date.
On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an order partially decertifying
the dairy farmer plaintiff class with which the Company had
previously entered into the settlement agreement.  The dairy
farmer plaintiffs that were decertified from the class are, or
were, members of the Dairy Farmers of America ("DFA") co-
operative.  On August 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion
asking the Court to re-consider its decertification order.  The
Court denied that motion on August 19, 2011.  In order to pursue a
final and certain resolution consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement, the Company filed a motion with the Court on
August 5, 2011 to vacate preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement, defer associated deadlines related to the settlement,
and to clarify the role of class counsel in light of the Court's
decertification order.  The motion was granted by the Court and a
Memorandum Opinion was issued on August 31, 2011.  In the
Memorandum Opinion, the Court stated that it would take the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement under advisement
pending appointment of separate counsel and class representatives
for the decertified DFA subclass.  In a separate order entered on
October 5, 2011, the Court appointed separate counsel for the DFA
subclass, and set December 16, 2011 as the deadline for newly
designated counsel to submit any motion for certification of a DFA
subclass for settlement purposes and any motion to preliminarily
approve the July 12, 2011 settlement agreement.  The Company said
that until it has further clarification and resolution regarding
the impact of the partial decertification order, there can be no
assurance that the settlement agreement will receive final
approval in its current form, in another form that is acceptable
to the parties, or at all.

In September 2011, the court ordered plaintiffs to return the
escrow account funds to the Company and return the standby letter
of credit for cancellation until the time as the settlement
agreement receives preliminary approval.  Accordingly, the escrow
funds have been returned to the Company and the letter of credit
has been cancelled.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company recorded a $131.3
million charge and a corresponding liability for the present value
of its obligations under the original settlement agreement, based
on imputed interest computed at a rate of 4.77%, which
approximates its like-term incremental fixed rate borrowing cost.
The Company continues to accrete interest related to this recorded
liability.

On April 26, 2011, the Company, along with its Chief Executive
Officer, Gregg Engles, and other defendants, were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
Division.  An amended complaint was filed in August 2011, which
dropped the class action allegations.  The allegations in the
amended complaint are similar to those in the Tennessee dairy
farmer actions.  In addition, plaintiffs have alleged generally
that defendants committed civil violations of the federal
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as
common law fraud and tortious interference with contract.
Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages for the alleged antitrust
and RICO violations, and compensatory and consequential damages
for the common law fraud and tortious interference claims.  With
respect to the antitrust allegations in the complaint, the
plaintiffs' proposed geographic market in the Mississippi action
is ambiguous as to whether it is identical to the geographic
market alleged in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions.  In any
event, Plaintiffs in the Mississippi action would likely also be
included in any class or classes certified in the Tennessee dairy
farmer actions.  Members of any Tennessee class or classes who
fail to exclude themselves from that class, or who excluded
themselves but are permitted to opt back into any class for
purposes of any settlement with the Company, will be bound by any
settlement in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions when it is
approved, which should release and extinguish any claims asserted
by them in the Mississippi action.

On August 11, 2011, a motion to dismiss all of the claims was
filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and motions to dismiss all but the
antitrust claims were filed on behalf of the company and the other
defendants.  Briefing on those motions was completed on
October 18, 2011.  Those motions remain pending.

At this time, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters.


DEAN FOODS: Tenn. Retailer & Indirect Purchaser Suits are Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class action lawsuits filed in Tennessee against Dean
Foods Company by milk retailers and indirect purchasers are
pending, according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  Plaintiffs allege
generally that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction
with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the
retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United
States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail
outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also
artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the retailer action
is still pending.  Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August
2010.  Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on
September 10, 2010, and filed a supplemental motion for summary
judgment as to the remaining claims on September 27, 2010.  Those
motions are currently pending before the Court, and the case has
been stayed pending resolution of those motions.  The Court has
not set a trial date yet for the retailer action.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the
"indirect purchaser action").  The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve
state law claims.  Because the allegations in the indirect
purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the
outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.
At this time, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate
outcome of these matters.


DEAN FOODS: Vermont Dairy Farmer Suit Resolved in October
---------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed in Vermont against Dean
Foods Company by dairy farmers was fully resolved in October,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company was named, among several
defendants, in a putative class action antitrust complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont.
The original complaint was amended on January 21, 2010, and
contained allegations similar in nature to that of the dairy
farmer actions, and alleges generally that the Company and others
in the milk industry worked together to limit the price dairy
farmers in the Northeastern United States are paid for their raw
milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk
processing facilities.  A second similar complaint was filed by a
different plaintiff on January 14, 2010.  The Company reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle all claims against the
Company in this action.  On May 4, 2011, the court entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
certifying the settlement class, and staying further proceedings
against the Company in the matter.  Pursuant to the agreement, the
Company paid $30 million into an escrow fund pending final
approval of the settlement agreement.  The court convened a final
fairness hearing on July 18, 2011 for the purpose of evaluating
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, and
granted final approval of the settlement on August 3, 2011.  On
August 15, 2011, the Court entered the Final Judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing all claims against Dean.  No appeals
were filed, and the settlement agreement became effective on
September 15, 2011.  On October 7, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for an
Order authorizing distribution of the settlement funds.  That
motion was granted on October 18, 2011.


DEER CONSUMER: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a purported securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The court
has not yet certified the class action status.  The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the
Section 20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act.  The
factual assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the
published statements at issue in the Alfred Little suit consist
primarily of allegations that the defendants made materially false
or misleading public statements concerning the Company's financial
condition in fiscal years 2010 and 2009.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of the Company's common stock during the
class period.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
September 6, 2011, with essentially the same allegations.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which motion is
scheduled to be heard on January 23, 2012.  The Company strongly
denies the allegations in the complaint.  The Company believes
this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and will contest it
vigorously.  The Company plans to pursue all legal remedies
available to it if the complaint is not withdrawn in its entirety.


DELTA AIR: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Baggage Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that air
travelers say in a federal class action that Delta Air Lines tells
them they are entitled to $25 to $50 in expenses a day for delayed
baggage -- though the contract actually grants them up to $3,300
for it.

Lead plaintiff Susan Miller sued Delta for breach of contract and
violation of state consumer protection laws.

"This is a case of breach of contract," the complaint states.
"Delta Air Lines has a contract with all its passengers to
reimburse them up to $3,300 for expenses if their bags are
delayed.  Delta ignores the contract and often tells passengers
they are only entitled to $25.00 to $50.00 in daily expenses. At
no point does Delta tell passengers of their rights to up to
$3,300.00 in reimbursement.  Passengers are left in the dark when
their bags are delayed.  Passengers want Delta to abide by its
contract."

Ms. Miller claims, "Delta is contractually responsible for
reimbursing consumers for any direct or consequential damages
resulting from Delta's own misconduct," including the cost of
medication, warm clothing or other essential items in the lost or
delayed baggage.  "Under the contract, if passengers need warm
clothes or medications, etc., they are entitled to buy those and
be reimbursed by Delta, not be told that there is a limit for
expenses of $25.00 a day.

"Despite this contractual obligation that has been assumed by
defendant in its uniform contracts of arrange, defendant uniformly
and systematically ignores and/or refuses to acknowledge this
obligation.  Signs are not clearly posted informing Delta
passengers of their rights and what signs are posted do not
clearly state that passengers have the right to reimbursement for
essentials when bags are delayed. What Delta does do is post small
signs in out of the way places with legal notices of terms of
contract of carriage.  Delta knows full well that passengers
boarding a plane won't notice such signs posted on the sides of
ticket counters as they are boarding, nor will passengers
understand the legal language 'contract of carriage.'  Delta knows
its signs are not intended to be noticed or understood.  All it
would take is a simple sign clearly posted in the baggage office
telling passengers that they can obtain reimbursement up to $3,300
for expenses they incur while the bags are delayed. Delta does not
do that.  Instead, defendant's front-line employees routinely deny
that this obligation exists and/or inform consumers that there is
an artificial dollar or daily limit on claims for reimbursement
when in fact defendant's contract provides no such limit other
than an overall cap of $3,300."

Ms. Miller claims the U.S. Department of Transportation put Delta
on notice in 2009 about the Office of Aviation Enforcement's
policy of a maximum of $3,300 for lost or delayed luggage, with no
daily limit.

"Defendant has thus been placed on notice that its continuing
conduct was illegal. Yet it has done nothing to confirm its
conduct to the legal requirements it has assumed under its
applicable contracts.  In doing so, defendant has failed and
refused to conform its conduct to the law and breach its own
contract," according to the complaint.

Ms. Miller seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the class.

A copy of the Complaint in Miller v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-10099 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/06/Delta.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David K. Tucker, Esq.
          DAVID K. TUCKER, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 630
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          E-mail: david@tuckerkotler.com
          Telephone: (305) 461-3627

               - and -

          John Mattes, Esq.
          1666 Garnet Avenue, #215
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 412-6081
          E-mail: investigativeguy@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          10200 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070


DIGITAL GENERATION: Gets Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Generation, Inc., received final court approval in
September of a settlement agreement entered in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In September 2010, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (10 Civ. 6523).
Subsequently, an identical lawsuit by the same plaintiff, also
captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (10 Civ. 1769),
and a similar lawsuit, captioned Tours v. Digital Generation,
Inc., et al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by a different plaintiff (10 Civ. 6930).  The
Northern District of Texas lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff and the other two lawsuits were consolidated before
Judge Richard J. Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned In re Digital Generation,
Inc. Securities Litigation (10 Civ. 6523).  On November 24, 2010,
Judge Sullivan appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that a
consolidated amended complaint be filed.  On January 24, 2011, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Digital Generation common stock between August 4, 2010 and
August 27, 2010, inclusive.  The consolidated amended complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact, or failed to disclose material facts,
about the Company's financial condition during the class period.
The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  On May 5, 2011, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the class action for an amount
within the coverage limits of our directors' and officers'
liability insurance.  The MOU provides, among other things, that:
(i) the litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as to all
defendants; (ii) defendants believe the claims are without merit
and continue to deny liability, but agree to settle in order to
avoid the potential cost, burden and uncertainty of continued
litigation; and (iii) the parties will jointly and promptly seek
court approval of the settlement.  On June 17, 2011, the parties
jointly submitted a stipulation of settlement to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On June 22, 2011,
the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
and directing the Lead Plaintiff to notify the class of the
settlement.  In July 2011, the Company said it insurance carrier
funded the settlement amount approved by the Court.  On
September 13, 2011, the Court entered a final order approving the
settlement.


ELECTRONICS COMPANIES: Settle LCD Price Fixing Suit for $388MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a collection of
eight electronics companies has agreed to pay roughly $388 million
to settle a civil lawsuit over alleged price fixing in the liquid
crystal display panel market, according to a court filing this
week.

The class action alleged a detailed conspiracy from 1996 through
2006 to fix LCD prices.  Several companies have also pleaded
guilty to separate criminal charges and paid fines.

One Taiwanese company, AU Optronics, and a handful of its top
executives are scheduled to go to trial next month against the
U.S. Department of Justice in San Francisco.

The civil class action settlement covers plaintiff purchasers who
bought LCD panels directly from eight other companies.

Among the defendants, Samsung Electronics agreed to pay nearly $83
million, Sharp is listed at $105 million, LG Display agreed to pay
$75 million, Chimei will pay $78 million, and Hitachi will pay $28
million, the filing says.

Representatives from those companies could not immediately be
reached for comment on Dec. 6.

The civil settlement has already received preliminary approval
from a U.S. judge in San Francisco, and a hearing for final
approval is scheduled for December 19.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Unit Awaits Ruling on Zion Suit Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZionSolutions LLC, EnergySolutions, Inc.'s subsidiary, is awaiting
court ruling on its motion to dismiss a purported class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, four individuals, each of whom are electric
utility customers of Commonwealth Edison Company, the former owner
of the Zion Station ("Com Ed"), filed a complaint in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, against ZionSolutions and Bank of New York Mellon, the
trustee of the Zion Station nuclear decommissioning trust fund.

The plaintiffs claim that payments from the NDT fund to
ZionSolutions for decommissioning the Zion Station are in
violation of Illinois state law, Illinois state law entitles the
utility customers of Com Ed to payments (or credits) of a portion
of the NDT fund and that Bank of New York Mellon was
inappropriately appointed by ZionSolutions as trustee of the NDT
fund.  The plaintiffs seek to enjoin and recover payments from the
NDT fund to ZionSolutions, that payments (or credits) of a portion
of the NDT fund be made to utility customers of Com Ed, the
appointment of a new trustee over the NDT fund, an accounting from
Bank of New York Mellon of all assets and expenditures from the
NDT fund, and costs and attorney's fees.  The plaintiffs also seek
class action certification for their claims.  On September 13,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
claims, to which the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition.
The defendants are preparing a reply memorandum in support of the
motion.  The court will rule on the motion once briefing is
complete.


IBERIABANK CORP: Bid for OK of Checking Acc. Suits Deal Accepted
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to approve settlement of two putative class action
lawsuits challenging IBERIABANK Corporation's checking account
overdraft fees was accepted before a federal judge subsequent to
September 30, 2011, according to the Company's November 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

IBERIABANK and the Company have been named as defendants in two
putative class actions relating to the imposition of overdraft
fees on customer accounts.  The first case, Eivet v. IBERIABANK,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida and presently bears Case No. 1:10-CV-23790-
JLK.  The case was originally filed elsewhere, but was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district
litigation ("MDL") involving numerous defendant banks, In re
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 09-MD-02036-JLK.
Plaintiff challenges IBERIABANK's practices relating to the
imposition of overdraft fees and non-sufficient fund fees on
consumer checking accounts.  Plaintiff alleges that IBERIABANK's
methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees and brings
claims for breach of contract and of a covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violations of state unfair trade practices laws.  Plaintiff seeks
a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The second of the two cases, Sachar v. IBERIABANK Corporation,
Case No. 60CV2011-0770, was filed in Pulaski County, Arkansas
Circuit Court on February 18, 2011.  Plaintiff asserts that
IBERIABANK Corporation engaged in the practice of re-sequencing
customers' accounts in high-to-low order by posting the largest
transactions first and the smallest transactions last which is
alleged to increase the number of overdraft fees.  The complaint
seeks damages for allegedly deceptive trade practices under
Arkansas state law, for breach of contract, for unjust enrichment,
for conversion, and for injunctive relief.

On May 12, 2011, the Company entered into a provisional settlement
agreement with the legal counsel for the plaintiffs in the two
putative class actions.  The joint settlement amount of $2,500,000
is predicated on (1) the judge's accepting this settlement as fair
and (2) the judge's certifying a national class.  All plaintiffs
have consented to the settlement amount.  Subsequent to
September 30, 2011, the motion of approval of the settlement was
accepted before a federal judge in charge of the multi-district
litigation in the Southern District of Florida.  At September 30,
2011, the Company has recorded a liability for the settlement
amount and related expenses of $2,550,000 in its unaudited
consolidated balance sheet, with a corresponding amount recorded
as noninterest expense in its consolidated statements of income
for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2011.  The liability
was initially recorded during the second quarter of 2011 and
continues to be recorded in its unaudited consolidated balance
sheet at September 30, 2011.


KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Securities Suit Dismissed in October
------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in New York dismissed a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit against Kohlberg Capital Corporation in
October, according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company and certain directors and officers were named as
defendants in three putative class actions pending in the Southern
District of New York brought by stockholders of the Company and
filed in December 2009 and January 2010.  The complaints in these
three actions alleged violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the
Exchange Act based on the Company's disclosures of its year-end
2008 and first- and second-quarter 2009 financial statements.  The
federal court consolidated the three lawsuits and appointed a lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on
March 21, 2011, and lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on May 11, 2011.  The Company moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On July 28, 2011, the Court
granted that motion and dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint, giving the plaintiff until August 22, 2011 to file any
further amended complaint.  Lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint on August 22, 2011, which
defendants moved to dismiss.  The Court dismissed that complaint
with prejudice on October 7, 2011.  Lead plaintiff will have 30
days to appeal the dismissal once final judgment is entered.


MEDIFAST INC: Continues to Defend "Proter" Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medifast, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by Oren Porter in a Maryland federal court,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On March 17, 2011, a class action complaint titled Oren Proter et
al. v. Medifast, Inc. et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]),
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified
amount of damages in the US District Court, District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects.
On March 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled Fred Greenberg
v Medifast, Inc., et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776 [BEL], alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, was filed for an
unspecified amount of damages in the US District Court, District
of Maryland.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects.  On July 19, 2011, the US District Judge ordered the
consolidation of the cases and appointment of co-lead counsel
among other matters.  The Greenberg case was dismissed without
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended
Complaint.  The Company has reviewed its allegations and intends
to vigorously defend against that Complaint.


MERITOR INC: Appeal in UAW Class Suit Over Medical Plans Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s appeal from an order denying its motion for
summary judgment and granting United Auto Workers' request to make
the terms of a preliminary injunction permanent remains pending,
according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 2, 2011.

The Company has retirement medical plans that cover certain of its
U.S. and non-U.S. employees, including certain employees of
divested businesses, and provide for medical payments to eligible
employees and dependents upon retirement.  These plans are
unfunded.

The Company approved amendments to certain retiree medical plans
in fiscal years 2002 and 2004.  The cumulative effect of these
amendments was a reduction in the accumulated postretirement
benefit obligation (APBO) of $293 million, which was being
amortized as a reduction of retiree medical expense over the
average remaining service period of approximately 12 years.  These
plan amendments have been challenged in three separate class
action lawsuits that have been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (District Court).  The
lawsuits allege that the changes breach the terms of various
collective bargaining agreements entered into with the United Auto
Workers (the UAW lawsuit) and the United Steel Workers (the USW
lawsuit) at facilities that have either been closed or sold.  The
complaints also allege a companion claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) essentially
restating the alleged collective bargaining breach claims and
seeking to bring them under ERISA.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief requiring the Company to provide lifetime retiree health
care benefits under the applicable collective bargaining
agreements.

On December 22, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting
a motion by the UAW for a preliminary injunction.  The order
enjoined the Company from implementing the changes to retiree
health benefits that had been scheduled to become effective on
January 1, 2006, and ordered the Company to reinstate and resume
paying the full cost of health benefits for the UAW retirees at
the levels existing prior to the changes approved in 2002 and
2004.  On August 17, 2006, the District Court denied a motion by
the Company and the other defendants for summary judgment; granted
a motion by the UAW for summary judgment; and granted the UAW's
request to make the terms of the preliminary injunction permanent
(the injunction).  Due to the uncertainty related to the ongoing
lawsuits and because the injunction has the impact of at least
temporarily changing the benefits provided under the existing
postretirement medical plans, the Company has accounted for the
injunction as a rescission of the 2002 and 2004 plan amendments
that modified UAW retiree healthcare benefits.  The Company
recalculated the APBO as of December 22, 2005, which resulted in
an increase in the APBO of $168 million.

The Company says it began recording the impact of the injunction
in March 2006.  In addition, the injunction ordered the defendants
to reimburse the plaintiffs for out-of-pocket expenses incurred
since the date of the earlier benefit modifications.  The Company
has recorded a $5 million reserve at September 30, 2011, and 2010
as the best estimate of its liability for these retroactive
benefits.  The Company continues to believe it has meritorious
defenses to these actions and has appealed the District Court's
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The
Company says the ultimate outcome of the UAW lawsuit may result in
future plan amendments.  The impact of any future plan amendments
cannot be currently estimated.


NAUTILUS INC: Recalls 10T Schwinn Elliptical Exercise Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nautilus Inc. of Vancouver, Washington, announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,000 units of Schwinn elliptical exercise
trainer.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The foot plates can detach from the machine during use, posing a
fall hazard.

Nautilus has received nine reports of foot plates detaching or
breaking during use.  One incident resulted in a consumer striking
his knee.

Elliptical exercise trainer equipment sold under the model name
Schwinn 460.  The machine is 73 inches tall and 54 inches long.
It is made of gray anodized aluminum with two moving and two fixed
handlebars all with black rubberized padding.  The fixed
handlebars have heart rate sensors on both sides.  The machine has
a touch-screen console, an adjustable fan and an orange-colored,
oversized water bottle holder.  A medallion with the Schwinn logo
is on the bottom right side of the base of the machine.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12052.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Nautilus.com, Amazon.com, Dick's Sporting Goods, AAFES, specialty
fitness retailers and specialty sporting goods stores nationwide
between July 2008 and May 2011 for about $1,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled models immediately and
contact Nautilus for a free repair kit that includes an extended
warranty.  For additional information, contact Nautilus toll-free
at 800-259-9019 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, or on the company's Web site at
http://www.schwinn.com/


PUREBRED BREEDERS: Sued in Florida for Selling Puppy Mill Dogs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Burnside, writing for NBC Miami, reports that a Cooper City
company believed to be America's largest online dog seller is
accused in a lawsuit of secretly selling puppy mill dogs instead
of dogs from top quality breeders as it claims.

The lawsuit against Purebred Breeders, filed recently by Leopold-
Kuvin on behalf of 11 customers, and in cooperation with the
Humane Society of the United States, the world's largest animal
advocacy group, comes after an NBC Miami investigation into the
company earlier this year.

Scores of angry customers nationwide believe the puppies they
bought online quickly became sick upon arrival -- and sometimes
died -- because they came from puppy mills, described by the
Humane Society as commercial-scale breeding facilities, often in
the Midwest, where profits come before caring for the animals and
where sickness and genetic defects are not uncommon.

Karen Leland, of Tequesta, Florida, became one of the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit after her Beagle puppy "Zoey" arrived at the
airport and became so sick that it died.  A heartbroken Ms. Leland
was, like other unhappy customers, offered full or partial
refunds.

Other unhappy customers were offered replacement dogs but such
customers rarely accepted the offer after they've invested money
and love into the sickly puppies.

"It's a marketing deception," said Humane Society President Wayne
Pacelle.  "They never even see the dogs."

Purebred Breeders is little more than a telephone call center in a
non-descript business park off Flamingo Road.  But its hundreds
and hundreds of Web sites often make it appear like a local dog
breeder.  "California English Bulldogs," for example, or "Florida
Golden Retrievers" -- quietly bring the customer to the same call
center in Broward County where the lawsuit claims they will sell
you a puppy from a puppy mill usually located in the Midwest.

Several inside sources tell NBC Miami the operation sells more
than 16,000 dogs a year, supplied by 2,000 breeders.  Christmas is
the busiest time of year.  Prices can go up to $4,000 and more
and, the sources say, are marked up 100-150 percent, creating a
hefty profit for Jason Halberg, who lives in an estate in
Southwest Ranches complete with a long, private driveway and guest
house.

Mr. Halberg declined repeated requests for an on-camera interview.
"After determining that the issues raised with these breeders
(mentioned in the lawsuit) had merit, they were immediately
terminated from our network," he said in a statement.  "We take
these matters very seriously and wish the Humane Society had come
to us directly so that we could have acted upon this information
sooner."

But several inside sources say Mr. Halberg's concern is feigned.
In fact, the Purebred Breeders "Code of Ethics" demands the kind
of standards not found in puppy mills even though suppliers named
in the lawsuit have been cited for serious violations of the U.S.
Animal Welfare Act.  Employees say he uses fake names for non-
existent managers, and sales scripts that pressure buyers into
purchasing.

The Humane Society of the United States is known to use powerful,
pro bono law firms to file similar class action lawsuits, such as
a suit that shut down Wizard of Claws, another Broward dog seller
different in that it took possession of the dogs before selling
them.  Purebred Breeders may appear to some to be actual breeders
of dogs.  But they are brokers simply taking orders for puppies
bred at large scale operations and marking up prices for
significant profits.

Every major animal advocacy group urges pet owners to never buy
online or from pet stores.  They say to be certain your money does
not go to support the puppy mill industry, always adopt a puppy or
dog from your local shelter, where countless unwanted dogs and
cats are euthanized every day because of the lack of people
willing to provide a loving home.


REDLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
A notice has been issued to all individuals and entities, who
purchased common stock of Redline Communications Group Inc., and
Redline Communications, Inc. traded on the AIM during the period
from December 6, 2006, to and including January 2, 2009, and on
the TSX on October 25, 2007, to March 15, 2010 and who held some
or all of those shares on March 15, 2010.

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publication
purposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached in
this litigation.  A Second Long Form Notice, with full details of
the settlement is available on Class Counsel's Web site:
http://www.classaction.caor the Administrator's Web site:
http://www.nptricepoint.com

Court Approval of the Class Action Settlement

In 2010, a class action was commenced in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against Redline and certain of its current or
former officers and directors, as well as KPMG LLP.  By order
issued on November 22, 2011, the Court certified the class action
and approved the Settlement Agreement dated September 6, 2011.
The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of
the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny, the
allegations against them.

The Settlement provides that the Defendants will pay $3,600,000 in
full and final settlement of the claims of Class Members,
including legal fees, disbursements, taxes and administration
expenses in return for releases and a dismissal of the class
action.  The Defendants, RDL's past or present parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, legal
representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns, and
any member of the individual Defendants' families and any entity
in which any of them has or had a legal or de facto controlling
interest are not permitted to participate in the Settlement.

Administration of the Settlement Agreement

The Court has appointed NPT Rice Point Class Action Services as
the Administrator of this Settlement Agreement.  NPT will oversee
the claims and opt-out processes and will distribute the
Settlement Amount.

Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the
Settlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim
Form and any supporting documentation to the Administrator, no
later than March 05, 2012, at the following address: Redline
Communications, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3355, London, ON,
N6A 4K3.

The Class Members who do not opt out and who file a valid claim
will be paid a pro rata share of the balance of the settlement
amount after payment of fees, expenses, and taxes.

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement unless they "opt out".  This means that Class Members
will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal
proceeding against the Defendants, or any other person released by
the Settlement Agreement, in relation to the matters alleged in
the class action unless they opt out.  If you do not want to be
bound by the Settlement Agreement you must opt out.  Please note
however, that by opting out you will also be barred from making a
claim and receiving compensation from the Settlement Amount.

If you wish to opt out you must submit a request to opt out which
states the name of the person wishing to opt-out, the number of
shares of RDL purchased during the Class Period and held as of
March 15, 2010 by the person opting out and stating clearly the
person's intention to opt-out of the Settlement, along with
documents evidencing those purchases, as set out in the Second
Long Form Notice, to the Administrator, no later than February 06,
2012.

For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, filing a claim and/or opting
out, or to obtain a Claim Form or request to opt out, visit the
Administrator's Web site: http://www.nptricepoint.comor contact
the Administrator by calling 1-866-432-5534.

The law firm of Siskinds LLP is counsel to the Plaintiff in the
class proceeding, and can be reached by telephone, toll free, at
1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380.

Publication of this Notice has been Authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.


SONY CORP: Judge Tosses Overheating TV Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Dec. 5 threw out, for the second time since July,
a putative class action brought against Sony Corp. of America over
its overheating televisions, finding the plaintiffs had once again
failed to state any substantial allegations.

U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino dismissed all but one of the
claims with prejudice.  The plaintiffs' California Consumers'
Legal Remedy Act claim was dismissed without prejudice.

"[The] plaintiffs' amendments do not cure the deficiencies of the
prior complaint," Judge Sammartino said in her order.


STEVE MADDEN: Receives Final Approval of Labor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Madden, Ltd., received in June final court approval of a
settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
California labor laws, according to the Company's November 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et
al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No.
BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws.  The
parties submitted the dispute to private mediation and, on
August 31, 2010, reached a settlement on all claims.  Based on the
proposed settlement, the Company increased its reserve for this
claim from $1,000 to $2,750 in the third quarter of 2010.  In June
of 2011, the court approved the final settlement for $1,968.  The
payment of the final settlement did not have a material effect on
the Company's financial position.


STORM FINANCIAL: Class Action Mediation Talks to Begin Next Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that mediation
talks will begin next year between Storm class action participants
and a number of Australian banks.

Parties involved in a Storm Financial class action against
Australian banks, including Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA),
will begin mediation talks in the new year.

Levitt Robinson Solicitors and Attorneys principal Stewart Levitt
said mediation would occur by the end of February 2012.

However, Mr. Levitt said despite moving to mediation, there was no
assurance a settlement would be reached.

"It depends on the offer, but if the price is right.  Obviously
there is a group that wants blood and there are other people who
want peace," he said.

"So at the end of the day there's no perfect justice, but I think
the potency of these amendments is that the bank shareholders
might be worried, but the executives don't see their careers on
the line over a finding that there is an unregistered managed
investment scheme.

"An unregistered managed investment scheme is something that
people can't necessarily recognize without the benefit of
perspective."

However despite this, Mr. Levitt said he believed "careers can be
made or broken" on the strength of unconscionable conduct and
misleading and deceptive conduct; two such claims Mr. Levitt's
case is seeking to push in court.

Late last month, Mr. Levitt claimed a small victory on behalf of
the Storm class action when Justice Reeves allowed amendments in
both the CBA and Macquarie actions.

"He [Reeves] has allowed the amendments to be made over the
opposition.  The banks, particularly Commonwealth Bank, who tried
to stop the amendments going through and their counsel Robert
Hollo described these amendments as being tectonic," Mr. Levitt
said.

"He thought they shouldn't be made as they were made after
proceedings were set down for trial, but notwithstanding it is
still 10 months out from any trial and three months out from any
mediation."

Mr. Levitt put to the court that CBA and Macquarie had not only
breached their contracts with the former Storm clients, but the
banks acted in an "unconscionable manner".

He said the banking groups acted in a way in which they
effectively had arrangements in place with Storm which effectively
meant that without their clients' knowledge they would not be
making margin calls.

Instead they would be managing the clients' portfolio in a way
that "suited the banks and Storm rather than the clients", he
said.

"We think that the more scrutiny there is about what went on, the
better placed our clients will be to cut a deal with the bank or
get justice at the end, notwithstanding that perfect justice is
not something that's available usually through the legal system."

Levitt Robertson directly represents 480 ex-Storm clients.

Meanwhile, on November 30, ASIC announced it would continue its
compensation actions against Bank of Queensland, Senrac Pty
Limited and Macquarie Bank after the Federal Court rejected
challenges to the corporate regulator's pleadings.

Justice Lindsay Foster declined to strike out the statement of
claim filed by ASIC on behalf of two former Storm investors (Barry
and Deanna Doyle), but required ASIC to clarify certain aspects of
the claims by filing an amended statement of claim.


TACO BELL: Faces Wage & Hour Law-Violations Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Duggan, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
v. Taco Bell Corp., a California corporation; Taco Bell of
America, Inc. a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-514469 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., September 21, 2011) arises out of alleged wage and
hour violations by the Defendants.

Mr. Duggan seeks wages, penalties, restitution, and declaratory
and injunctive relief from the Defendants.  He also seeks to
represent a class that includes former Taco Bell employees, who
worked for Taco Bell in California within four years prior to the
filing of the complaint.

Taco Bell removed the lawsuit on December 2, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Taco Bell argues that the removal is
proper because the action is between citizens of different states.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-05806 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8033
          Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: asokolowski@initiativelegal.com

               - and -

          Katherine Carol Den Bleyker, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: kdenbleyker@initiativelegal.com

               - and -

          Miriam Leigh Schimmel, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          Facsimile: (213) 861-9051
          E-mail: MSchimmel@InitiativeLegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tracey Adano Kennedy, Esq.
          Morgan P. Forsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
                  mforsey@sheppardmullin.com


UNITED STATES: Trial for Military Drug Testing Suit Set for 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Hodge, writing for JDNews.com, reports that Jacksonville
resident Frank Rochelle says he still has nightmares about being
used as a human guinea pig for military drug testing more than 40
years ago.

He considers himself one of the luckier ones.

Mr. Rochelle, 63, is one of six former "test vets" suing the
Department of Defense, U.S. Army, CIA and Department of Veterans
Affairs for healthcare and notification about the risks they face
as a result of human testing undergone at Edgewood Arsenal in
Edgewood, Md., between the years of 1950 and 1976.  First filed in
2009, the case is expected to go to trial in the Northern District
of California next year.

Mr. Rochelle was drafted into the Army in 1968, at the age of 20.
He volunteered for a temporary duty assignment in Edgewood
Arsenal, he said, when he was told he would be testing military
equipment and be entitled to a few perks, such as not having to
wear a military uniform during the workday.  He signed a
confidentiality waiver and then began a course of testing that
included atropine, an anticholinergic drug with hallucinogenic
properties.

During the two-and-a-half days of hallucinations that resulted
from inhaling the drug, Mr. Rochelle alleged seeing animals come
out of the walls, and trying to cut the freckles out of his arm
with a razor, thinking they were bugs underneath his skin.

He attributes residual memory loss, breathing disorders and
anxiety to the days he spent in testing at Edgewood.

Another plaintiff, William Blazinski, said he was dosed with
varieties of tear gas, experimental nerve gas antidote scopolamine
and physostigmine during his time at the testing facility.  He
believes his 2008 diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and
ulcerative colitis may be connected to the experiments he
underwent.

In addition to notification and health care, the plaintiffs are
asking for release from the oaths of secrecy they took to
participate in the project.

Gordon Erspamer, the San Francisco-based attorney with law firm
Morrison and Foerster who is representing the veterans and two
veterans' support organizations in the class-action suit, said in
all up to 400 different chemical agents were tested on humans at
Edgewood, including LSD and mustard gas, and at least 7,800
American troops were used in testing at that facility alone.

"Some of these were the most diabolical experiments you could
possibly imagine," he said.

After a series of motions to dismiss the suit by the U.S. Attorney
General based on jurisdictional claims and other legal objections,
Morrison and Foerster won the right to proceed with the case in
early 2010.

Notably, the Defense Department does not deny that human
experimentation was conducted at military facilities.

"Since the end of World War II, DoD periodically evaluated the
(chemical and biological) threat and the ability of U.S. forces to
fight on a chemical and biological battlefield," an OSD web page
on the subject reads.  "In some programs service members were
present but not test subjects and in other programs they were
volunteer human subjects.  Testing of biological agents on human
subjects ended in 1969; testing of chemical agents on human
subjects ended in 1975.  DoD is investigating these exposures that
occurred as far back as 30 to 60 years ago."

According to information on the page, the department plans to
complete its investigation into the exposures by the end of this
year.

While the defendants allege they made efforts to notify those
involved in the experiments through the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the plaintiffs say only a token number of veterans
received letters, and these letters assured them they would face
no adverse health effects from the testing.

"It stands to reason, if you were given chemical warfare agents,
you would have adverse health effects," Mr. Erspamer said.

The lawsuit is now entering the final weeks of discovery, and
Mr. Erspamer said he was still fighting for the release of
important records, including magnetic tapes documenting nine years
of U.S. and CIA involvement in the experiments and documents
recording exposures and testing prior to 1953.

"We've been given a song-and-dance about it for the past two-and-
a-half years," he said.

Mr. Rochelle is hopeful that the suit will result in more people
learning about the health risks they may face from the
experiments.

"We want to be released from our secrecy oaths, along with the
medical care that we've been denied for years," he said.  "We'd
like to correspond or talk to some of the other people that have
been involved with the testing.  Through this lawsuit we've
located a lot more."

The agencies named in the lawsuit do not comment on ongoing
litigation.


YAHOO: Faces Class Action Over No Cross Talk Provision
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Reisinger, writing for CNET.com, reports that a Yahoo
shareholder has launched a class-action lawsuit against the online
giant, alleging that a ban on crosstalk for firms interested in
acquiring the company is anti-competitive, and harms shareholders.

"The No Cross Talk Provision constitutes an unreasonable anti-
takeover device, designed to entrench and favor [Yahoo co-founder
Jerry] Yang and the current board," M&C Partners III, the case's
plaintiff, wrote in a suit obtained by ZDNet Australia's sister
site CNET, and filed with the Delaware Chancery Court last week.
"It tilts the playing field unreasonably in favor of Yang, who is
working to attract investors who will take a large minority
position in Yahoo (less than 20 per cent, but enough to
effectively block any future proxy contest), and who can be
expected to support Yang's desire to retain a disproportionate
influence over Yahoo's business and affairs."

Reports of Yahoo forcing potential suitors to agree to the
provision cropped up in October.  The clause effectively bans
companies from working together to bid for Yahoo.  When the
requirement was first made public, it was viewed as a simple way
for Yahoo to increase competition as it pondered offers.

But M&C sees it another way.  The shareholder acknowledged that in
some cases, such a provision can be useful, but it said that Yahoo
"is the classic 'difficult sell,'" and, therefore, should attempt
to give buyers any opportunity to present the company with a solid
deal.

If Yahoo is a "difficult sell", it appears that many companies
don't seem to notice.  Over the last several months, a host of
investment firms, including Silver Lake Partners and Bain Capital,
have reportedly shown interest in acquiring all or part of Yahoo.
Tech giant Microsoft and China's Alibaba Group are also reportedly
considering buying a piece of the company.

M&C's lawsuit is just the latest shot that Yahoo has taken from a
shareholder.  In September, following the company's ouster of
former CEO Carol Bartz, major Yahoo shareholder Third Point spoke
out about the online company's failings.

"From the failed Microsoft sale negotiations to a subsequent
bungled and disappointing search deal with Microsoft, through a
series of misguided CEO selections and, most recently, the Alipay
debacle, this board's failures have destroyed value for all Yahoo
stakeholders," Third Point CEO Daniel Loeb wrote in a letter to
Yahoo's board.  "Against this background, it is evident that
merely replacing the company's CEO -- yet again -- will not be
enough to alter the direction of the company.  Instead, a
reconstituted board with new directors who will bring fresh eyes,
relevant industry expertise and increased investor alignment to
the table is immediately necessary."

M&C appears to agree. Along with suing Yahoo, M&C included the
company's board members in its lawsuit.

For its part, Yahoo hasn't immediately responded to requests for
comment on the lawsuit.  But if the company loses, it will be
forced to eliminate the crosstalk provision, rescind "any ensuing
unfair transaction" that results from the provision and resist any
takeover requests until it "implements a procedure or process to
obtain the highest possible price for shareholders."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bartonville, Ill. Tourism Project Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that plans to take an abandoned
building on the grounds of an old state hospital in Bartonville,
Illinois, and turn it into a new tourist attraction is being
delayed because of the presence of asbestos and the need to remove
it before the project continues.

According to an article in the Peoria Journal Star, investor
Richard Weiss had concocted a number of plans to turn the Bowen
Building on the grounds of the Bartonville State Hospital into a
destination that would attract visitors.  Before completing his
plans, Weiss had hoped to open the doors of the old hospital
building for "lucrative tours", hence raising the money for more
repairs and renovations and the completion of the project.

However, a partner recently backed out of the project, alarmed by
the cost of asbestos removal inside the structure, which is more
than a century old.  The process, reports the article, could cost
as much as $200,000.  That's because asbestos was a regular
component in literally dozens and dozens of building materials
used in the early to mid 20th century, including pipes, cement,
insulation, flooring, ceiling tiles, and more.

Weiss had hoped the town would foot the bill for the cost of
abatement but, thus far, they've refused.  Local government had
previously helped abate two additional buildings on the campus
that were also owned by Weiss, but the structures were then
demolished.  Town officials believe the same fate may await the
Bowen Building if no one comes forward to help the investor with
the costs.

Renovation projects such as this often face obstacles due to the
presence of asbestos, which was once considered a miracle mineral
due to its excellent insulating properties and durability.
However, as early as the 1930s, there was suspicion that asbestos
was making people sick and causing diseases like asbestosis and
mesothelioma.  New uses of the material were finally outlawed in
the late 1970s, but scores of old structures still contain
asbestos materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 30 Million Homes Still Have Attics With Zonolite
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak at The Mesothelioma Center reports that an estimated 30
million homes in the country, mostly in the Midwest and
Northeastern states, still have attics with Zonolite insulation,
which contains the asbestos-filled vermiculite.  It's where a lot
of Americans go each December to find their stored-away holiday
decorations.

Often they come out of the attic -- people and decorations --
sprinkled with dust particles, which may or may not be tainted
with asbestos from the insulation that is there.

No level of asbestos-exposure is considered safe, according to
experts.  Inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to a number of
serious health issues, including mesothelioma cancer, which has no
cure.

Experts say it is the children in the home who become most
vulnerable when the artificial trees and colored lights come down
from the attic, where the asbestos is better left undisturbed.

"It's particularly important to understand the risks for children
who have higher breathing rates and will inhale more of the
fibers," Aubrey Miller, M.D., medical director for the
Environmental Protection Agency, told AOL News a year ago.
"Children, especially the young ones, spend much of their time on
the floor playing with the ornaments and toys, breathing the
asbestos-contaminated dust."

According to a recent study done in France and published in the
European Respiratory Journal, people who are exposed to asbestos
at a younger age have a greater chance of developing mesothelioma
later in life than others whose first exposure comes when they are
older.

The vintage ornaments with all the sentimental value might be the
most dangerous.  Asbestos was once lauded as a valued resource,
particularly for its heat resistance and fire-proofing
capabilities, making it perfect for Christmas tree decorations.

Asbestos was once marketed as artificial snow and sprinkled on
trees and wreaths and ornaments.  Although those products have not
been produced for many years, the oldest decorations that were
passed down from one generation to the next, may still have small
amounts of asbestos.

The most famous asbestos snow scene was used during the filming of
"The Wizard of Oz," the 1939 classic with Judy Garland that became
the most watched film in history.  There is a scene in the movie
where snow, made from asbestos, falls on Dorothy and her friends,
awakening them from a spell cast by the Wicked Witch of the West.

The Raybestos-Manhattan Corporation, which made the product, even
marketed the snow in 1940 with an advertisement that included: "It
is a safe snow for holiday decorations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contamination Hinders Property Sale in Mobile
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mclendon at The Press-Register reports the city of Mobile,
Ala., owns one of downtown's biggest eyesores but efforts to sell
the property at a reasonable price have been frustrated by
questions about possible environmental hazards posed by the
asbestos within its walls.

A newly complete assessment of the City Hall North building, which
sits on about an acre between Water and St. Joseph streets,
addresses the asbestos issue.

The study confirmed the presence of asbestos and other
contaminants and puts the price of cleaning them up at about
$240,000.

The property has been appraised at $940,000, according to the
city.

The building has been on the market since 2007, said John
Olszewski, the city's real estate manager.  The city disclosed the
presumed environmental problems, but had been unable to say
precisely how much cleanup work would be involved or how much it
would cost.

The city received a few offers, Olszewski said.  Then the bottom
fell out of the economy and potential buyers were unwilling to
invest in a property with outstanding question marks.

Armed with the new assessment, the city hopes to rekindle interest
in a sale.

In the meantime, the city is pursuing a federal grant so it can
proceed with cleaning up the building on its own.

The grant, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency
through its Brownfields Program, is competitive and requires a 20%
match from the city.

The city's portion would be covered through in-kind services, said
Ray Richardson, head of the Environmental Services Department.

The EPA should announce whether the city has been accepted for the
program by late summer 2012, Richardson said.

The building was constructed in the late 1940s as a hotel for
seamen, Olszewski said, then passed through several owners before
the city bought it in the 1980s for office space.

Gradually, however, the building was left vacant as various city
departments found new quarters.

Over the years it has become a magnet for vagrants and vandals.

City Councilman William Carroll asked Mayor Sam Jones'
administration during the Nov. 29 council meeting at what point
the city would be forced to declare the building a public nuisance
and have it demolished.

"We'll let you know," Jones replied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Case Moved to Houston MDL
-------------------------------------------------
David Yates at the Southeast Texas Record reports that a notice of
transfer was recently filed in an asbestos suit against E.I.
DuPont De Nemours, removing the case to a Houston Multidistrict
Litigation Panel.

Agnes Dixon and her children filed a suit claiming John Dixon Sr.
developed pulmonary asbestosis and died after spending a career
working around products that contained asbestos.

The suit was filed Aug. 31 in Jefferson County District Court and
names the following defendants: Dupont, Tin Inc. formerly known as
Temple Inland Forest Products, Tin Inc. formerly known as Temple-
Eastex, Inland Paper Board and Packaging, Temple Inland, Inland
Container, Inland Orange and Owens Illinois.

On Nov. 17 DuPont filed a notice of transfer under rule 13 of tag-
along case, sending the case to Harris County Judge Mark Davidson,
11th District Court.

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege Dixon was exposed to asbestos
dust and fibers throughout his career at DuPont and Owens
Illinois.  As a result, John Dixon Sr. developed pulmonary
asbestosis and died on Sept. 20, 2010, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek exemplary and punitive damages, plus damages
and court costs.

J. Keith Hyde, D'Juana Parks and Darren Brown of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont represent the plaintiffs.

Mehaffy Weber attorney Sandra Clark --
SandraClark@mehaffyweber.com -- represents DuPont.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, was originally assigned
to the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMSI Finds Chrysotile in Pomonok Houses
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Barkan at the Queens Tribune reports Eli Goldstein won't let
anyone from management into apartment 3B any longer.  He has been
told, because of his weak heart, it's not safe for him to get
riled up.  The Korean War veteran will sit indignant at his
cramped kitchen table -- a touch of fear bubbling in his ancient
face -- as he hopes that his daughter, son-in-law, and
grandchildren living with him will not be in danger much longer.

Judi Lolloway, Goldstein's daughter, burst into their cluttered
apartment to confirm what they say building managers at Pomonok
Houses in South Flushing, N.Y., have allegedly been trying to deny
or hide: asbestos had been found in their bedroom tiles.  The
victory was short-lived; no one has yet come to get rid of it.

Pomonok Houses is a sprawling 60-year-old public housing
development, and Eli Goldstein is one of its earliest tenants.
When Pomonok creeps into the news lately, it is usually for the
random acts of violence that plague any housing development, or in
one instance, garbage that piled up on a handball court.  Life
there is generally free of the greater strife that plagues the
more desperate, crime-riddled developments in the city.

Yet interviews with residents reveal a troubling truth.  Life in
Pomonok isn't what it used to be, and relief is not around the
corner.

When an exterminator came to their apartment at 69-25 Kissena
Blvd., N.Y., to rid a couch of bedbugs in October, the
exterminator told the residents the apartment had asbestos.  Soon
after, Mrs. Lolloway said testers from Pomonok came to check for
asbestos.  She could never, she alleges, get these test results.
And Pomonok officials she spoke with denied knowledge of the tests
ever occurring.

Pomonok's superintendent and the assistant manager of 69-25
Kissena Blvd., Allen Guadagno, did not respond to requests for
comment as of this printing.  A spokesperson at the New York City
Housing Authority said public comment about individual cases could
not be made without the signed consent of those individuals.

Kevin Thorner, of the Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, said the
tenant is supposed to call 311, which is required to respond to
reports of disturbed asbestos within 24 hours.  Mr. Goldstein said
he made the call, but nobody ever came to check on the asbestos.

Eventually, after a slew of phone calls to various outside
agencies, the family paid $300 to Environmental Management
Services, Inc., to perform an independent round of tests.  This
time, the results were clear: asbestos was found in two different
bedrooms beneath tiles, and in one bedroom, results were
dangerously high.

Especially alarming was the 8.7% positive result for Chrysotile,
the most common form of asbestos, found in floor tiles.  According
to Mike Furda, a field environmental officer for Housing and Urban
Development, any level over 1% can pose a health risk.

"It seems like the property manager or landlord is playing this
low and not making a big fuss," he said.  "It's going to take a
lot of time, money, and energy to replace the asbestos-containing
materials."

Assemblyman Mike Simanowitz (D-Flushing) has received Mrs.
Lolloway's complaint and said he believes Pomonok building
managers are not treating residents with respect.  He has
forwarded Mrs. Lolloway's asbestos report to NYCHA.

"I've been in contact with the Housing Authority to express
displeasure with the way management has been reacting in general,"
Assemblyman Simanowitz said.  "There seems to be some sort of
disconnect here."

Like many public agencies over the past few years, NYCHA has
struggled to keep what funding it has and stave off further
losses.  In November, President Barack Obama signed three budget
bills that ensured funding levels of public housing authorities
would be $4 billion less than 2011 levels.  The fund that is
dedicated to the physical upkeep of public housing will be shrunk
by $165 million.  A decade ago, NYCHA received as much as $410
million in funding, and will now receive around $250 million.

"I must say that I don't know what the hell is going on over there
these days," said Roy Metcalf, the former director of publications
and reports at NYCHA from 1970 to 1991.  "Public Housing is dead
as a social issue.  One legitimate beef they do have is
diminishing federal, state, and city subsidies, which are starving
the projects."

If public housing is dead as a social issue, residents of Pomonok
are fighting again to revive it.  For now, they wait warily for
improvements to come their way.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Argue on Trial Schedule in Madison County
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris and Christina Stueve at The Madison Record report
that lawyers debated politely for 45 minutes on Wednesday,
Nov. 30, about how many hundred trials to schedule for the year
after next.

No one at the hearing before Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder in
Madison County Circuit Court expected more than a trial or two to
actually occur in 2013, but only one lawyer proposed not to
pretend.

Union Carbide lawyer Kent Plotner at Heyl Royster --
kplotner@heylroyster.com -- told Judge Crowder she should set
cases for trial as needed without pre-slotting.  He said Judge
Crowder could determine where to slot them when they come in.
"When a case comes in and the merits of the case stand alone, your
honor can set that case," Plotner said.

Mr. Plotner said it didn't make sense to have slots for cases that
don't exist.

Madison County hosts the busiest asbestos docket of any state
court in the nation.  Of the hundreds of cases filed here each
year, most of the claims are from out of state residents, and most
of the claims are filed on behalf of plaintiffs suffering from the
most serious asbestos-related disease, mesothelioma.

Close to 3,000 mesothelioma diagnoses are made in the United
States each year and close to 500 mesothelioma claims are filed in
Madison County each year.

In 2010, there were 752 asbestos cases filed in Madison County.
This year's figures are on pace to exceed last year's total.

Defendants have argued that Madison County's advance calendar
setting encourages plaintiff lawyers to go out and market the
asbestos docket.

And they claim that during any given trial week (there are 28 this
year) -- where 19 individual cases are set for trial -- defendants
don't know on Monday morning of that trial week which plaintiff
among 19 will go to trial.

After Mr. Plotner spoke, no defense lawyer seconded his motion.

Judge Crowder took under advisement a proposal from plaintiffs to
set 27 trial weeks with 19 trials a week, a total of 513 for the
year 2013.

The firm that files the most Madison County asbestos cases,
Simmons of Alton, has requested 10 trial dockets for 2013.  In
2011 and 2012, the firm was assigned nine settings.

And the second most prodigious asbestos firm, Gori and Julian of
Edwardsville, has requested seven trial dockets for 2013, up from
six the firm was assigned in 2011 and 2012.

Normally, the court's annual hearing is held in March to set the
following year's trial docket.

Judge Crowder's bailiff Rod Schmidt said about the earlier
setting, "We like to be progressive."

Chief Judge Ann Callis appointed Crowder as Madison County's first
full time asbestos judge last year, transferring all her pending
cases to other judges.

Judge Crowder succeeded retired Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, who
managed the asbestos docket for five years while presiding over
other civil suits.

While Judge Crowder said she does not know how many cases she
currently presides over, the ones that are moving are ones with
more serious claims.  "The only cases on this docket are people
with a terminal diagnosis," she said.  "They're dying or already
dead."

Judge Crowder said she is trying to dispose of case dated 2009 and
older, including ones from 2005.

"One thing I do is try -- dismiss or settle," Judge Crowder said.
"It's not doing any good to have old cases sitting around.  It's a
'get your ducks in a row' and get cases done."

For Crowder's hearing on the 2013 trial calendar, about 60 lawyers
showed up.

After Mr. Plotner pitched his plan, defense lawyer Brenda Baum,
Esq. -- bgb@heplerbroom.com -- of Hepler Broom said the plaintiff
proposal sets up many conflicts among plaintiff firms.

Ms. Baum said five firms asked for slots on June 17, 2013, for
instance.  And, two to four firms asked for slots on other days,
she said.  The total shouldn't exceed 475 slots, with no more than
two firms on any date, she said.

Ms. Baum proposed a minimum number of filings for a firm to
qualify for the docket.

Defense attorney Ray Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com --
of Armstrong Teasdale said multiple firms on one docket made it
hard to anticipate the time and effort of preparation.  He said
that with one firm, defendants can negotiate properly.

Mr. Fournie said the number of firms with standing on Madison
County's docket went from eight to 10 since last year.

Mr. Fournie said there was a potential increase in the number of
firms with no connection to Madison County.  He also said Judge
Crowder can't prevent outside firms from filing.  He said he
recognized the predicament their constitutional right creates.

Most plaintiff lawyers in the room kept quiet.

No one from the Simmons or Gori firms spoke.

Five commented briefly, one so softly that people 10 feet away
couldn't hear.

Only Elizabeth Heller, Esq. -- elizabeth@ghalaw.com -- of Mark
Goldenberg's firm in Edwardsville, scored points on the plaintiff
side.  She said defendants changed their theme from, "If you build
it they will come," to, "Madison County, the last open
jurisdiction."

"The sky is not falling," she said.  "The system is working."

Ms. Heller said cases without merit are being dismissed or
transferred.

Ms. Heller said the Goldenberg firm filed 86 cases this year, 59
of them mesothelioma cases.  Her firm will file in excess of 100
before the end of the year, she said.

"We represent more than 3,000 Madison County residents with non-
malignant cases on the deferred docket," Ms. Heller said.

Ms. Heller said they track those cases to see if clients develop
lung cancer.  "We have a backlog of 40 ready to be set," she said.

Judge Crowder said she would get an order out quickly.

After the hearing, Mr. Fournie said a trial docket with 513 slots
was a challenge for the court and more so for defendants.

"We are here all the time," Mr. Fournie said.  "Trying to juggle
that without a huge financial drain on our clients is tricky," he
said.

Mr. Fournie said he represents General Electric, Hercules, Chicago
Bridge and Iron, and others.  He said a central forum simplifies
litigation because, "A lot of people worked at a lot of different
places."

Mr. Fournie said he didn't know how many asbestos suits he
currently defends.

"If there are 500 slots, one of my clients is going to be in 490
of them," Fournie said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stafford Allotment Site Contaminated
-----------------------------------------------------
The Staffordshire Newsletter reports that asbestos has been
unearthed at a Stafford allotment site several months after
suspicious activity was reported at the site.

The discovery of the hazardous material at Coton Fields
Allotments, run by Stafford Freeman's Allotment Trust, was made
last week by the Environment Agency.

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: "In response to a
complaint of buried asbestos, we visited the Coton Fields
allotment site on Wednesday (Nov. 30) to oversee the excavation of
buried asbestos.  The Stafford Freeman's Allotment Trust were
present when the excavation took place and cement bonded asbestos
sheeting was removed.

"With the removal complete, we will now be ensuring that the
correct paperwork and procedures are being followed with the
disposal of the asbestos waste.  In addition, we are working with
the Stafford Freeman's Allotment Trust to ensure that those
responsible for the burying of this waste will be dealt with
appropriately."

But concerns have been raised about the time taken for the
incident to be dealt with by the Trust.  There are fears that any
legal implications that may involve the Trust -- because of
asbestos was buried illegally on the site -- may put the
allotments under threat as well as the Freemen's 800-year history
of land cultivation in the borough.  The situation has also led to
tensions between some site users.

Derek Hill, ex-chair of the Allotments Management Committee, said:
"Since I first reported this incident to the Trust I and others on
the allotment site have been subjected to slanderous remarks and a
barrage of verbal abuse, so much so, that I am in the process of
initiating legal proceedings against these people."

The Newsletter was told that a mini digger was witnessed on the
site in late May and concerns about the possible burial of
asbestos reported in June to the Trust.

The Environment Agency spokesperson said the organization first
received an anonymous report of buried asbestos on the site on
July 19.  "Although the Environment Agency did attend the
allotments in response to this report, we were unable to take
further action due to a lack of details," they added.

They were unable to obtain specific details until Sept. 22, when
they met with the Trust's chairman and secretary.  Action to
tackle to issue was agreed, including removal of the substance
from the site.

Derek Luker, chair of the Trust, confirmed the matter was reported
to the trust in June, who initially contacted Stafford Borough
Council "virtually immediately".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Public High School Violates Health Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that the largest public high
school in the state of Rhode Island is not in compliance with the
Rhode Island Department of Health's Rules and Regulations for
Asbestos Control, reports an article in the East Providence Patch.

According to the article, written by Abigail Crocker, East
Providence High School is in a sad state of disrepair overall, and
though some asbestos tiles have been removed and other upgrades
made, the school district continues to make "emergency repairs" on
damaged asbestos-containing tiles, a move that has most likely
resulted in the release of dangerous asbestos fibers.

Tests that measure the level of airborne asbestos will be
conducted during the winter break, the district notes but, notes
the letter from the Dept. of Health, there is no guarantee that
the high school will be in compliance with regulations anytime in
the foreseeable future.

"If air testing results show unsafe conditions, the school will
need to remain closed until repairs are made and air testing
results pass clearance standards," says the report, which was
written after an October inspection.  A closure of the high
school, says School Committee member Chrissy Rossi, would result
in "unimaginable chaos".

In the meantime, students, staff, and faculty could be exposed to
hazardous asbestos, which was once used in floor and ceiling tiles
and is still present in a large number of America's schools,
particularly those built prior to about 30 years ago.  Airborne
asbestos fibers can be inhaled and later cause lung-related
diseases including asbestos cancer.

According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations,
schools must keep track of asbestos materials and must see that
they are maintained in a proper manner so as to avoid any hazards.
If the asbestos in schools cannot be contained so that it is safe,
it must be removed.  However, dozens of public school districts
face budgetary constraints that make costly abatement difficult,
resulting in circumstances like the one at East Providence High
School.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Health Dept Slaps $9T Penalty to 2 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii24/7 reports that the Hawai'i State Department of Health
(DOH) has issued a Notice of Violation and Order against Kaua'i
Industries, LLC and Big Island Landscaping for multiple violations
of the state's asbestos demolition and renovation regulations.

Kaua'i Industries, LLC and Big Island Landscaping were cited for
failure to thoroughly inspect the affected facility for the
presence of asbestos prior to its demolition activity; failing to
provide the DOH with a separate written notice of intention to
demolish prior to its activity; and engaging in an asbestos
disturbance activity without proper asbestos certification.  The
violations were discovered during a site inspection at the Kekaha
Sugar Mill on Kauai on April 6, 2011.  The DOH has imposed a
penalty of $9,000.  Kaua'i Industries, LLC and Big Island
Landscaping may request a hearing to contest the allegations or
order.

Since the department's discovery of the violations, the owner and
operators of the Kekaha Sugar Mill demolition project have been
cooperative in correcting the deficiencies in accordance with
state requirements.

The DOH Indoor & Radiological Health Branch regulates demolition
and renovation activities to ensure thorough identification of
asbestos materials and prevent improper abatement or disturbance
of material that can pose a risk to public health.  The branch
requires all owners, operators and contractors involved in
demolition activities to use certified asbestos inspectors to
conduct a thorough and complete inspection of the facility or
portion of facility for the presence of asbestos prior to
demolition; properly notify of the DOH prior to demolition; and
use only certified asbestos abatement employees when engaging in
asbestos abatement or disturbance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Nuclear Power Station Worker Dies of Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Gloucestershire News reports that a former nuclear power
station worker died 21 years after his retirement from a cancer
caused by asbestos, an inquest heard.

Donald Pooley worked as a scientific officer in the laboratories
at Berkeley Nuclear Power Station but also travelled to other
similar power stations around the country.

Gloucestershire Deputy Coroner David Dooley was told Mr. Pooley
had worked for the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB)
from 1968 until he retired in 1990.

Mr. Pooley, 80, of Tabernacle Road, Wotton-under-Edge, died on
July 5, 2011, at his home.

His GP Dr. Richard Probert told the hearing at the Seasons
conference centre in Cheltenham that Mr. Pooley had been mainly
well until he started suffering from shortness of breath in
November 2008.

He was sent for tests and it was found that he was suffering from
mesothelioma - a type of lung cancer always associated with
breathing in asbestos dust.

A report prepared by Dr. Robin Rudd, an expert in the field, said
Mr. Pooley had not been exposed to asbestos until 1968 when he
started working for the CEGB at Berkeley.

"As part of his work, he installed and removed asbestos blankets
from around a test rig which produced a good deal of dust every
time," Dr. Rudd said.

"And when permanent asbestos insulation was damaged or had to be
removed, it was cut away causing a great deal of dust, and left
lying on the floor until it was swept up, which caused more dust.

"There was no protection equipment available at the time because
the risks of asbestos were not recognized."

A post mortem examination carried out by Dr. Preti Joshi found a
tumor at the base of the right lung and the cancer had spread to
Mr. Pooley's intestine.

Microscopic tests found only a moderate level of asbestos fibers
in his lungs but this was still within the levels which were known
to cause mesothelioma.

Summing up, Mr. Dooley said: "It is clear from his employment
history that he did come into contact with asbestos while working
for the CEGB at Berkeley Nuclear Power Station and at other sites.

"Mesothelioma is almost always associated with asbestos and I can
be satisfied that he came into contact with it at work."

He recorded a verdict of death from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Telecomm Pays Ex-Worker Over Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Herald Express posted that a retired telecommunications
engineer has been awarded a payout after contracting a deadly
asbestos-related disease during a long working career in Torbay.

Grandfather Frederick Vincent, 76, from Torquay, U.K., has been
given a five-figure sum by a judge sitting at the High Court in
Bristol.

A judgment was made against Mr. Vincent's former employers,
British Telecommunications Plc, for its part in allegedly
negligently exposing its employee to asbestos dust.

Mr. Vincent worked for the company for 30 years and was regularly
exposed to the lethal fibers.

Mr. Vincent was diagnosed with mesothelioma on his 50th wedding
anniversary to wife Jean earlier this year.

Mr. Vincent says he will use the money, an interim payment pending
a final settlement, to improve his healthcare for the time he has
left and make provisions for his family.

Mr. Vincent started as a telegram boy for the Post Office in
Torquay when he was 15 and then for BT as an installation engineer
between 1962 and 1989 where he regularly came into contact with
asbestos.

Mr. Vincent said, "As an installation engineer, I spent a lot of
time in the telephone exchanges in the Devon area where a lot of
asbestos was used for fire insulation purposes."

"I had to drill through a lot of asbestos insulation board to get
to the telephone wires.  I worked near a lot of asbestos-lagged
pipe work."

Between 1959 and 1962 Mr. Vincent was exposed to more asbestos
while working for a major employer in Paignton, Standard
Telephones and Cables.

Now, Mr. Vincent and his family, including five grandchildren, are
all trying to come to terms with the news that he has an
aggressive cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Vincent said, "I have not had any chemotherapy as this is not
a cure and I am worried about the side effects.

"I am trying to enjoy some quality time with my family, but I'm
very aware this will now be cut short.

"The interim payment I have received will go towards private
nursing care and any equipment that I will need as my illness
progresses and we may need a car so that Jean can drive me to my
medical appointments."

Specialist industrial disease lawyer, Helen Grady, of Irwin
Mitchell Solicitors who represented Mr. Vincent, said, "Even in
the 1960s and 1970s employers knew of the risks associated with
asbestos and the dangers of inhaling lethal fibers.

"Mr. Vincent's case is continuing but he is secure in the
knowledge that he will receive a financial settlement which will
at least ensure that he will be able to purchase the care and
equipment which he may need due to his illness and he has the
comfort of knowing that his wife will be financially secure going
forward."

A spokesman for BT said, "BT takes its health and safety
responsibility very seriously and we have extensive policies in
place to protect our employees from asbestos related hazards.

"Mr. Vincent's claim related to alleged exposure many years ago.
As the case is ongoing we cannot comment any further."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: As-Pac Dragged in Chrysotile Trade Issue
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sandborn, for TheTyee.ca reports that a group of scientists
and anti-asbestos campaigners are demanding the Asia Pacific
Foundation of Canada to disavow pro-asbestos statements made by a
former foundation fellow, Baljit Chadha.

In recent letters penned to the foundation, human rights
campaigner Kathleen Ruff and a group of prominent scientists
slammed Mr. Chadha's support of Canada's export trade in
chrysotile asbestos.  As The Tyee reported earlier this year,
asbestos mining and export has come under fire from a long list of
medical and public health bodies, including the Canadian Medical
Association, and labour and social justice groups such as the
Canadian Labour Congress.

A spokesperson for Mr. Chadha -- a key figure in an attempt to
raise public and private money to revamp and re-open Quebec's
Jeffrey Mine, which produces chrysotile asbestos primarily for the
export market into Third World countries -- disputes the claims
made in the letters.  Mr. Chadha's group of investors hopes to win
support from the Quebec government to re-open the operation as an
underground mine.

It's the latest round in a long debate over the future of the
industry, one that, while currently stalled, could see a second
life should Chadha win Quebec's support.

The Tyee obtained letters sent to the foundation by Ms. Ruff, a
former director of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, as well as
the group of scientists supporting her call for action on Mr.
Chadha's statements.  Mr. Chadha has made his pro-asbestos views
known in various venues, including in a Montreal Gazette op-ed and
on the foundation's website.

"I believe that Mr. Chadha's conduct violates normal standards for
any reputable research organization and discredits the Asia
Pacific Foundation of Canada," states Ms. Ruff's letter.  "I
request that you ask Mr. Chadha to stop denying the overwhelming,
clear, reputable scientific evidence and to stop serving his
vested interests by promoting deceptive misinformation concerning
chrysotile asbestos."

Ms. Ruff's letter echoed a similar call from 25 scientists and
physicians.  They argue the foundation is "violating minimum
ethical standards" by refusing to take action against Chadha, "who
falsely claims that the World Health Organization supports the use
of asbestos, when, in fact, the World Health Organization opposes
the use of asbestos."

Guy Versailles, a public relations consultant representing Mr.
Chadha, responded to The Tyee's request for comment, stating that
Mr. Chadha has "absolutely no intention" of resigning from the
foundation, and that he stands by his statements.

Foundation executive director Jill Price noted via email that Mr.
Chadha's term as a Distinguished Fellow expired on Oct. 16 of this
year, and that he no longer had any connection with the foundation
as of that date.

Ms. Price went on to say: "We know well that many trade and
economic issues find Canadians divided, along with those involving
human rights and the environment, among others.  Our job is to
provide an open platform and non-partisan approach for a reasoned
discussion."

In Mr. Chadha's op-ed article in the Montreal Gazette, the Quebec
financier wrote that: "There is peer-reviewed scientific evidence
that exposure to chrysotile asbestos respecting the province's
industrial exposure standard of one fiber per cubic centimeter
poses no health risk.  That is the norm at the mine today and by
the World Health Organization today."

In her letter to the foundation, Ms. Ruff calls this claim false,
citing a 2006 statement from the WHO that reads in part: "Bearing
in mind that there is no evidence for a threshold for the
carcinogenic effect of asbestos and that increased cancer risks
have been observed in populations exposed to very low levels, the
most efficient way to eliminate asbestos related diseases is to
stop using all types of asbestos."

In response, Mr. Versailles suggested that Ms. Ruff and other
anti-asbestos campaigners are misrepresenting the position of the
WHO.  He said a later vote by the World Health Assembly, which he
described as the top decision-making body of the WHO, declined to
support a total ban on asbestos exports.

"WHO will work with Member States to strengthen the capacities of
the ministries of health to provide leadership for activities
related to workers' health . . . Its activities will include
global campaigns for elimination of asbestos-related diseases --
bearing in mind a differentiated approach to regulating its
various forms . . . " a 2007 WHO document reads.

Mr. Versailles said this statement, made in May 2007, trumps the
call for asbestos eradication in the 2006 WHO statement that Ms.
Ruff cites.  "I fail to see how an information document published
a year earlier could supersede a clear decision by the WHO's top
decision making body," he wrote by email.

However, a 2010 WHO fact sheet states the organization "works with
countries towards elimination of asbestos-related diseases in the
following strategic directions: by recognizing that the most
efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases is to stop
the use of all types of asbestos . . ."

And while criticizing what it characterizes as "inconsistency" in
WHO policy on asbestos, a pro-asbestos industry website "No
Chrysotile Ban," has also recognized that the U.N. body called for
a ban in a major publication.

Ms. Ruff argues that the evidence for asbestos harm and for a
total ban is widely supported by medical experts and organizations
around the world.

"What Mr. Chadha says in his presentation on your website is
repudiated as dangerous, disreputable misinformation by Canada's
medical authorities and international authorities," she writes in
her letter, citing a slew of major health organizations including
the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, and
the Lung Association of Canada.

"Not a single reputable scientific or medical association supports
the assertions put forward by Mr. Chadha on your website," she
concludes.

Dr. Ferdinand Turcotte, one of the 25 scientists who also wrote a
letter to the foundation, told The Tyee: "As far as independent
science is concerned, the carcinogenic property of all forms of
asbestos is a settled question, and it has been so for close to 50
years.

"It is a fundamental rule of conduct in public and occupational
health practice that whenever a product is found to be
carcinogenic, we have the duty to substitute a non-carcinogenic
substitute when such is available, which has been the case with
asbestos for a very long time."

Mr. Chadha's rep said that statements from the many medical
organizations that call for asbestos bans do not persuade him.

"We should not throw away our judgment just because we hear from
doctors," Mr. Versailles argued.  "The evidence for harm is not
there."  He said that WHO estimates of 100,000 asbestos deaths
annually around the world were not backed up with hard data.

Mr. Versailles also provided The Tyee with a letter signed by six
figures variously identified as "independent toxicologist,"
"consultant in toxicology," academics associated with a foundation
or with universities in the U.K. and Canada.  The six authorities
cited by Versailles say in the letter that:

"The latest scientific evidence published strongly supports the
following views:

"1: Chrysotile is significantly less hazardous than the amphibole
forms of asbestos (e.g. crocidolite and amosite);

"2: When properly controlled and used, chrysotile asbestos in its
modern day high-density applications does not present risks of any
significance to public and/or worker health."

At least one of the authorities who signed the pro-asbestos letter
has a history of contracts with the asbestos industry.

According to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. David
M. Bernstein, who is described in the pro-asbestos document as a
"consultant in toxicology" based in Switzerland, was paid over
$400,000 dollars for pro-asbestos consulting by Union Carbide, and
has worked for other asbestos producing firms over the years.

Meanwhile, on Nov. 24, CTV reported that for the first time in 130
years, production of asbestos ore from Canadian mines had
completely stalled, after production stopped at the Jeffrey Mine's
only Canadian competitor, Thetford Mines.

However, Bernard Coulombe, president of the Jeffrey Mine that Mr.
Chadha hopes to renovate, was quoted by CTV as saying he was
optimistic that the Quebec government will provide the loan
guarantee that Mr. Chadha is seeking, thus allowing another 25 to
50 years of asbestos export activity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caregiver Slams Gwynedd Council Over Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth W. Williams of the Caernarfon and Denbigh Herald reports
that a care assistant has slammed Gwynedd Council (Wales) and
outside contractors who she says left herself and others exposed
to potential asbestos poisoning.

Nia Hughes, from Llithfaen, has worked at the Plas-y-Don care home
in Pwllheli for 12 years.

According to the mother of two, work to replace the floor in
February exposed staff, contractors and patients to unacceptable
health risks.

The risk assessment by Gwynedd Council concluded that Ms. Hughes
may have "possible exposure to a level of asbestos which may
develop into disease over time".

Ms. Hughes said: "On February 28, work started to remove floor
tiles from a heavily used corridor.

"When I started my shift, there were two workers there placing
adhesive for the new floor tiles but on closer inspection,
everywhere was covered in dust including the contractors
themselves.

"When I got home the following morning after my night shift, I
could feel my throat was burning and I'd developed a bad cough
from nowhere.

"The dust was all over my clothes and shoes and was in close
contact with my husband and children before they went to school
and work.

"Two days later I was back at work and while cleaning, noticed
that dust was still everywhere.  I was still coughing and couldn't
get rid of it.

"It was only when a co-worker had a look at the plans for the new
floor that it was found that the old tiles contained asbestos, and
it was only then that the severity of it all became clear.

"No-one had told us about this beforehand, and I'm sure no-one
would have told us either had we not taken that step.

"I don't profess to knowing much about asbestos beforehand, but I
did know that it's killed people in the past and I was terrified
for myself, staff, residents and also my children.

"Weeks had gone by where we were exposed to this every day and God
knows what kind of health risks that may have incurred."

She added: "Appliances that belong to the home, such as Hoovers,
had been used by the contractors to clean up the debris.  It
wasn't until later that these appliances were taken away.

"On March 14, I received an apology from the council who said many
lessons were to be learnt from the process, but why did they only
learn them after putting us all in danger?

"They are keen to stress that we were only exposed to low levels,
but surely we should have been protected from the very beginning?

"The Health and Safety Executive couldn't believe it when I told
them the story, and they agreed that the proper safety procedures
had not been followed.

"I'm fuming that this situation was allowed to take place at all."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed at Surrey, Va. Facility
--------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that in April 2011, contractors
were hired to repair the aging Surrey nuclear power plant in
Southeastern Virginia.  Individuals in charge of plant safety
assured the contractors that there were no asbestos exposure risks
involved in the project, as all of the asbestos in the plant's
pipes had been abated, or else contained clear warning signs
indicating the presence of asbestos.

When contractors began work replacing the pipes in the reactor's
turbine building, there were no asbestos warning labels present on
the pipes.  However, as workers began to cut into the pipes, a
fine, particle-like substance filtered into the air -- landing on
the contractors' clothing and permeating the air they were
breathing.  After following the pipes down two floors, they
discovered an asbestos warning label.

Because the nuclear plant's owner had no air sampling equipment
present at the time of the incident and state investigators didn't
arrive until three days after the incident, investigators are
unsure as how much asbestos the contractors came in contact with.
However, reports from the State Department of Labor reveal that
asbestos fibers were found on 12 workers, as well as three work
trailers.

Asbestos is a dangerous mineral fiber used heavily in
manufacturing between the 1920s and the 1970s, despite warnings
that the fibers could cause respiratory problems, as well as life-
threatening cancers.  Many companies began eliminating the use of
asbestos in the 1980s before it was finally banned permanently in
the early 1990s.  Unfortunately, contractors remain at increased
risk for exposure to the mineral when working on old structures
built using asbestos, such as the Surrey nuclear power plant.

Doug Larkin, co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, notes that state and federal oversight of company
compliance with asbestos safety laws needs improvement.  Larkin
says that there are too few inspectors available to ensure public
and worker safety, and with regard to the Surrey nuclear plant
incident, he says, "It's incredible that people are still being
exposed today.  This type of behavior is absolutely appalling."

Asbestos inhalation and ingestion is directly responsible for the
development of mesothelioma in thousands of people each year --
many of whom do not develop the disease for several decades
following initial exposure to asbestos.  Mesothelioma is an
aggressive cancer with no cure, and it's almost always fatal.

The state fined Quality Specialties Inc. $4,900 for improper pipe
labeling at the Surrey nuclear facility, but that doesn't
necessarily indicate that further accountability will not be
required of Quality Specialties Inc., plant owners or other
companies involved in the hazardous asbestos exposure incident.
Apparently, the contractors are currently exploring their legal
options regarding the event.  According to Dr. Arthur Frank, chair
of Drexel University's Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health, the workers "are at an increased risk, but
it's hard to say if they'll develop diseases.  Only time will
tell."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tretol Group Pays GBP200T to Ex-Worker's Widow
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Scott at the Maidenhead Advertiser reports a widow whose
husband died as a result of asbestos exposure has been handed a
GBP200,000 payout after the discovery of a 60-year-old phone book
helped prove his place of work.

Burnham villager Pamela Holliday, 72, took legal action against
the Canterbury-based Tretol Group after her husband Ralph died in
June 2008 aged 72.

Mr. Holliday had been required to handle asbestos while working at
a factory in Buckingham Avenue, Slough, between 1951-54 for Tretol
Limited, which manufactured anti-freeze paints, bitumen and
plastics.

Initially his employers refused to accept responsibility, claiming
Mr. Holliday had worked for another company with a similar name.

After enlisting the help of one of the country's leading asbestos
law experts, Brigitte Chandler of Swindon-based Charles Lucas &
Marshall, High Court proceedings were issued against the group,
which was refusing to answer any correspondence.

A trial was due to start on Thursday, Dec. 8, but early last week
the company offered an out-of-court settlement when Mrs. Holliday
tracked down a 1950s phone directory which proved the group was
based where Mr. Holliday had claimed it was.

Miss Chandler said: "I saw Mr. Holliday just before he died and he
was quite clear as to the name and address of the company he
worked for.

"It's very difficult to find witnesses after 60 years and they no
longer had any documentation, but Mrs. Holliday made enquiries
with the local archives and amazingly they still had an old
directory which found it was the Tretol Group there in the 1950s."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Lawyer Pushes for More Funding
------------------------------------------------------------
As November's National Lung Cancer Awareness Month comes to an
end, the need for more research into lung cancer and other
asbestos-related diseases continues, New York mesothelioma lawyer
Joseph W. Belluck said.

Although 157,300 people are afflicted each year with lung cancer,
according to the Lung Cancer Alliance, and an estimated 2,500 to
3,000 die of the related cancer of mesothelioma, research for
these diseases is not as well funded as for other cancers, Mr.
Belluck pointed out.

According to a recent Scripps Newspaper report, the Susan G. Komen
Foundation for breast cancer will operate with $200 million this
year in research funding, while LUNGevity, the nation's largest
private lung cancer foundation, will give out only $2 million for
research.

"Unfortunately, too many people associate lung cancer only with
smoking, and that may impact funding, but there are many other
causes of the disease -- one of which is asbestos," said Mr.
Belluck, a partner of the New York personal injury law firm of
Belluck & Fox, LLP, who focuses his practice on handling lung
cancer and mesothelioma claims related to asbestos exposure.

"That's why Lung Cancer Awareness Month is important.  It raises
awareness of the many causes of lung cancer, and, hopefully, that
generates more funding for research into treatment options and
possible cures," Mr. Belluck said.  "However, when the month ends,
the battle goes on.

"We need to continue to promote awareness and encourage funding
for research that can ultimately help to improve the survival rate
for lung cancer and mesothelioma victims."

Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in the U.S. in
construction, shipyards, the military, automobiles and insulation.
It has been recognized as a carcinogen by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and
International Agency for Research.

Although both are caused by asbestos, mesothelioma and lung cancer
are completely different diseases, with different origin sites,
tumor structure and treatability, Mr. Belluck pointed out.

Additionally, while lung cancer can be traced to many different
agents, asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, Mr.
Belluck said.

"Unfortunately, both forms of cancer can be very aggressive and
fatal," Mr. Belluck said.

Mr. Belluck urged people to seek medical treatment promptly if
they believe they have signs of lung cancer or mesothelioma.  Mr.
Belluck also stressed that symptoms usually do not appear for 10
to 50 years after exposure to asbestos.

"It's also important for victims of asbestos-related diseases and
their families to know that they have legal rights and can pursue
a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against the company or
agency that exposed them to this toxic substance," Mr. Belluck
said.

Mr. Belluck advised victims of asbestos-related lung cancer and
mesothelioma to seek out an asbestos exposure lawyer who has
experience handling asbestos claims.

"While monetary awards cannot undo the harm caused by asbestos
exposure, it can help to secure funds that will ease the financial
burdens victims and their families face," Mr. Belluck said.

                     About Belluck & Fox, LLP

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is a nationally recognized law firm that
represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as
well as victims of crime, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other
serious injuries.  The firm provides personalized and professional
representation and has won over $400 million in compensation for
clients and their families.

Partner Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is
listed in Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine's "Best
Lawyers in the New York Area" and in Super Lawyers.  Mr. Belluck
has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective
medical products, tobacco and lead paint, including a recent
asbestos case that settled for more than $12 million.

Partner Jordan Fox is a well-known asbestos and mesothelioma
attorney who has been named to the Best Lawyers in America, New
York Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York Area" and to Super
Lawyers.  On two separate occasions his verdicts were featured as
the National Law Journal's Largest Verdict of the Year.  He
recently secured verdicts of $32 million and more than $19 million
on behalf of individuals who had contracted mesothelioma from
asbestos exposure.

In September, Belluck & Fox, LLP, won a coveted spot on a list of
America's best law firms, which was published jointly by U.S. News
& World Report and Best Lawyers magazine.  The listing showcased
8,782 different law firms ranked in one or more of 81 major
practice areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty. Joseph Belluck Supports Global Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
New York mesothelioma lawyer Joseph W. Belluck voiced his
agreement with an article recently published in the International
Journal of Environment and Health that called for a total global
ban on asbestos.

According to the article, only 52 of the 194 nations in the world
prohibit the import, export, and use of asbestos.  Asbestos
exposure has been linked to mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining
of the lungs, chest, or abdomen -- and other related diseases.

Due to its heat-and fire-resistant properties, the material was
popular in the construction, shipbuilding, and automobile
industries.  Asbestos still can be found in many buildings and
homes in floor tiles, ceilings, insulation, and piping.

"As an advocate for mesothelioma victims, I've seen the effect
that asbestos exposure can have on both the victims and their
families," say Belluck.  "The overwhelming impact that
mesothelioma has on victims and families can be stopped only when
there is a complete ban on asbestos."

The authors of the journal article point out that there are safer
alternatives to asbestos, making the production and use of
asbestos hard to understand.  The authors note that at least 125
million workers worldwide are exposed to asbestos today, with 20
to 40 percent of adult men reporting past occupations that might
have exposed them to asbestos.

Symptoms of mesothelioma can appear 10 to 60 years after exposure.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about
2,700 people in the United States die each year from mesothelioma.

       About Belluck & Fox, LLP

The mesothelioma law firm of Belluck & Fox, LLP represents victims
of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease, as well as
individuals with claims related to medical malpractice, motorcycle
crashes, lead paint, and other serious injuries.  Their attorneys
have won almost $350 million in compensation for clients and their
families.

Partner Joseph W. Belluck received an AV Peer Review Rating(TM)
from Martindale-Hubbell(R), and he is listed in New York
Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York Area" and Super Lawyers.
He has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos,
defective medical products, tobacco, and lead paint.  He recently
settled an asbestos case for more than $12 million.

Partner Jordan Fox, a well-known asbestos and mesothelioma
attorney, has been named to Super Lawyers, the Best Lawyers in
America, and New York Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York
Area."  Two of his verdicts have been featured as the National Law
Journal's Largest Verdict of the Year.

In September 2010, Belluck & Fox LLP garnered a coveted spot on a
list of America's best law firms published jointly by U.S. News &
World Report and Best Lawyers magazine.  The listing highlighted
8.782 different law firms ranked in one or more of 81 major
practice areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grant Council Member Cited for Abatement Efforts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Silver City Sun-News reports that The Grant County Community
Health Council recognized the achievements of two members, Tony
Trujillo and Alan Berg.  Trujillo was honored with the annual
Senator Ben Altamirano Health Council Member of the Year award.
Berg received the first Above and Beyond award for his part in the
Quail Ridge Fire asbestos abatement.

Trujillo was nominated for Member of the Year for his dedication
and long-term commitment to the Health Council.  As a founding
member and previous chair of the Health Council, Trujillo has
invested innumerable hours towards the health and wellness of
Grant County.  Trujillo serves as the Health Council's mining
sector representative through his position as director of
government relations of the New Mexico Operations Freeport-McMoRan
Copper and Gold.

After the devastation of the Quail Ridge Fire, Berg brought to the
forefront the concern of the possibility of asbestoses in the
burned houses, as an environmental hazard.  He volunteered his
time to testing for asbestos.  With a coordinated effort with
local officials and a generous donation from Freeport-McMoRan
Copper and Gold, via the Community Enhancement Fund, the abatement
was completed.  Berg was awarded the Above and Beyond award for
his efforts on this project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Extends Insurance Policy to Old Reardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM, Inc., and its two subsidiaries, Bondex International, Inc.,
and Republic Powdered Metals, Inc., sought coverage from multiple
insurance companies led by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company
for the settlement and defense costs related to thousands of
asbestos-exposure products-liability lawsuits that began in 1981.
Many of the asbestos claims allegedly arise from consumers'
exposure to products manufactured by The Reardon Company, a
corporation that sold its assets and liabilities to RPM,
dissolved, and became a division of RPM's business in 1966.

The relevant insurance policies, issued in Ohio for policy periods
spanning from 1973-1985, did not expressly identify Old Reardon or
its later incarnation as "Named Insureds."  Nevertheless, the
insurance companies do not dispute that the policies provide
coverage for asbestos claims related to the Reardon products, and
each insurance company has paid RPM, et al., pursuant to the
applicable policies' aggregate limits for "Products Hazard"
claims.  Collectively, the insurance companies have paid more than
$100 million in coverage under the relevant policies.

RPM, et al., seek more than $125 million in additional coverage
under the relevant policies, as well as several million dollars in
continuing defense costs from Mt. McKinley Insurance Company,
arguing that the policies' "Products Hazard" caps do not apply to
the Reardon claims.

The district court rejected Bondex's coverage theories and granted
summary judgment to the insurance companies, reasoning that the de
facto merger doctrine warranted extending the policies' Products
Hazard caps to Old Reardon, as RPM's absorbed predecessor. As a
result of this ruling, the district court dismissed many of the
insurance companies' contingent counterclaims and third-party
claims as moot and dismissed certain counterclaims for failure to
meet the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b).

In a Nov. 28, 2011 Memorandum and Decision, a three-judge panel
composed of Senior Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, Judge Deborah L.
Cook, and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the
district court holding that the language of the insurance policies
and the parties' course of dealing support the district court's
judgment.

The Appellate Court held that both Old Reardon and the Reardon
Division qualify as Named Insureds under the plain language of the
policies.  The Appellate Court pointed out that though the
relevant policies do not expressly identify Old Reardon or the
Reardon Division as Named Insureds, the policies' specialized
definition of "Named Insureds" include both organizations
identified in the policy declarations and "any subsidiary company
(including subsidiaries thereof) and any other company under their
control and active management at the inception date of [the]
policy."

The Reardon Division constituted a company under the control and
active management of Named Insured Republic/RPM at inception, and
thus qualifies as a Named Insured, the Appellate Court further
held.  The products, which Republic/RPM continued to manufacture
and sell through the Reardon Division, qualify as Named Insured's
Products, the Court added.  The Court reached the same conclusion
for products manufactured by Old Reardon (pre-1967), but sold,
handled, or distributed by the Reardon Division (post-1966).

The case is BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RPM, INC.; and REPUBLIC
POWDERED METALS, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES, v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., DEFENDANT, AND
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY [09-3091]; MT. MCKINLEY INSURANCE
COMPANY [09-3092]; CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY [09-3304];
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY [09-3307]; COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY
[09-3307], DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS, Nos. 08-4735,
09-3091, 09-3092, 09-3304, 09-3307 (6th Cir.).  A copy of the Nov.
28, 2011 Decision is available at http://is.gd/RfdaJEfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation of Gladsky Marine Site Completed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Glen Cove Record-Pilot reports that Nassau County Executive
Edward P. Mangano joined Mayor Ralph Suozzi at the Gladsky Marine
Site, the site along the north side of Glen Cove's Waterfront, to
announce that the remediation of the Gladsky Marine Site has been
completed.

The Gladsky Marine Site, located on the south side of Garvies
Point Road, underwent cleanup efforts that commenced in the spring
of 2010 with grants from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's Environmental Restoration Program and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfield
Cleanup Program, which included funding from Nassau County's
Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund, Mangano's office stated.

"The county's investment of $1 million in Environment Protection
Agency funds garnered attention from the EPA who stated that this
project which at one point thought never to commence turned into
the largest site cleanup in the EPA Brownsfields program in 2010,"
said County Executive Mangano.  "This project is an important step
toward restoring hope, opportunity and jobs to our communities
that are being held back by the presence of old, abandoned
industrial sites that once polluted our environment.  Working
together we can continue to have successes such as this for the
betterment of our environment and residents."

According to Mangano's office, after the 1999 closure, results of
environmental investigations identified numerous contaminants,
including semi-volatile organic compounds, metals and asbestos.
An environmental remediation was necessary to bring the land back
to productive re-use.  The project achieved substantial completion
in January 2011.

"The Gladsky Marine site plays an important role in the Glen Cove
Waterfront Revitalization Project.  Designated as a 1998
Brownfield Showcase Community, the City of Glen Cove has marshaled
the resources of federal, state and local governments including
Nassau County and leveraged millions of dollars of public and
private investment.  With the assistance of agency partners in the
EPA, this landmark project has bundled several blighted parcels
which include Superfund Sites, National Priority List Sites,
Brownfields and inactive hazardous waste storage sites to ready
for re-development a 52 acre contiguous area of waterfront
property," Mangano's office stated in a release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Immigrant Workers Seek Stronger Safety Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that concern over asbestos
exposure in the construction and abatement industries dominated
the discussion at a meeting at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C.  The leaders and workers urged that the country
needs stronger safety regulations.

Hispanic immigrant workers emerged as the prominent voice of the
event.  The group discussed the unique issues that they face with
unsafe working environments, which are often filled with toxic
materials.

If there is asbestos around, you should always see a sign.  This
is not always the case, workers say.

"I witnessed a school where they removed asbestos . . . and this
asbestos was just sitting loose on the ceiling," said Pedro
Osorio, a construction worker in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Osorio, unlike others, vocalized his concerns to his boss only
to see very little action taken.

Many of the workers are immigrants with language barriers.  As a
result, some are afraid to blow the whistle about safety concerns
because they fear they may lose their jobs.

Despite rational concerns about health, some have even been
threatened by management to be replaced if they speak out.
Because of an abundant labor force that is available in the area,
the workers remain afraid.

Ernesto Torres is a construction worker who also attended the
event.  For him, it may already be too late.  He is sick after
working many years around asbestos.  Mr. Torres can only hope to
see regulations changed, for the benefit of others.

"It's hard, it's real hard.  I don't want [this] to happen to
[anybody] else," Mr. Torres said.

The toxic mineral is blind to race or immigration status but is
biased towards those who interact with it constantly.  Prolonged
asbestos exposure contributes to the thousands of cases of
mesothelioma every year.

Laws and regulations exist on the books, but many are poorly
enforced.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other
health organizations identify it as a deadly carcinogen, yet no
national ban exists.

According to a report by the Labor Occupational Health Program at
UC Berkeley, the construction industry is filled with an immigrant
work force, many of whom don't even know what asbestos is.
Employers take advantage of this.

Construction and abatement companies cut corners in hope of saving
money.  The consequences of these actions can dramatically affect
lives.

"At the end of the day, we should not be cutting corners and
putting you and your families in danger and putting all of us in
danger just to make more money, and that's what it comes down to,"
Maryland State Sen. Victor Ramirez said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Contractor Sentenced for Contempt
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Bellett at the Vancouver Sun reports that an asbestos
removal contractor who ignored orders from both WorkSafeBC and the
B.C. Supreme Court to stop exposing "vulnerable" workers to
asbestos will be sentenced Jan. 23 for contempt of court.

WorkSafeBC inspectors found that Arthur Moore of AM Environmental
used employees as young as 14 years of age to remove asbestos-
contaminated drywall from homes being demolished without providing
them any protection.

Mr. Moore continued to do this despite restraining orders from the
B.C. Supreme Court.

Mr. Moore, who was arrested for contempt of court, appeared in
court on Dec. 1 without legal counsel.

Speaking to sentencing, Workers' Compensation Board lawyer Scott
Nielsen told Justice Richard Goepel that Mr. Moore "contrary to
the court's order exposed workers as young as 14 to a life
threatening substance."

Mr. Nielsen said WCB statistics on the effects of asbestos were
unequivocal.

"Asbestos kills.  It was the leading killer of workers in B.C. in
2009, responsible for 44 per cent of all deaths arising from
employment," said Mr. Nielsen.

Mr. Nielsen said Mr. Moore's contempt should command a "severe
response" -- a sentence at the upper end of the scale.

He asked for a jail sentence of between six to 12 months.

Justice Goepel reserved judgment but advised Mr. Moore to have his
affairs in order when he next attends court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Dept Declares East Providence School Safe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Soens at WPRI.com reports that days after writing a letter
to the East Providence School Committee raising serious concerns
about asbestos at East Providence high school, the Rhode Island
Health Department said the school is safe and the chances of it
being shut down are unlikely.

"There's a problem with asbestos floor tile in that school," says
Robert Vanderslice of the Health Department, who toured East
Providence High in October.

"It's been patched over the past.  We'd like to see more of that
floor tile addressed."

School Committee Chairman Charles Tsonos says the district is
working on a solution.

"There is a plan," Mr. Tsonos told Eyewitness News.  "But the
biggest piece of the plan is the financing."

The cash-strapped city has already spent $6 million on repairs at
the high school, and city officials plan to secure an additional
$9 million in April.

"There are many schools that need work and this is one of the
major issues we have moving forward," says Mr. Tsonos.

The Department of Health plans to test the school for airborne
asbestos during the upcoming winter break.  In a letter to the
school committee, health officials said they were prepared to
close the school if the testing turns up harmful levels of
asbestos: "If air testing results show unsafe conditions, the
school will need to remain closed until repairs are made and air
testing results pass clearance standards."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Slams Wording Used in Insurance Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy McGuffin of The Morning Star reports that a case before the
Supreme Court could end years of uncertainty over whether the
victims of a rare form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure at
work are entitled to compensation.

Unite, the union, will appeal to England's highest court after
insurance companies were partly successful in a test case in
challenging their liability for victims of mesothelioma.

The Court of Appeal overturned a 2008 High Court ruling last year,
which had said that all insurers who provided cover to the
employer at the time of the asbestos exposure should pay up.

The Court of Appeal decided that in certain cases the employers'
liability insurance is triggered not by the exposure to asbestos
but by the development of the disease.

Unite points out that the disease invariably develops decades
later, by which time there is no insurance in place to respond to
the claim.

The ruling has meant that in every subsequent case the exact
wording of the insurance contract would have to be studied and in
some cases victims have been left without compensation.

The union is bringing the appeal on behalf of the family of
Charles O'Farrell, a retired member who died in 2003 having been
exposed to asbestos while working as a steel erector from 1964 to
1967 for Humphreys & Glasgow Limited.

The firm was insured at the time by Excess Insurance Company
Limited but ceased trading in 1992.

Excess Insurance argued that it was not liable to pay out because,
according to the wording of its policy, employees had to "sustain
injury" at the time they were working for the employer and within
the 12-month period of the insurance policy.

The appeal court decided that Mr. O'Farrell did not "sustain
injury" until he developed mesothelioma many years later, after
his employment had ended and long after the insurance policies in
place at the times of his exposure to asbestos had expired.

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said: "Unite is determined
to restore justice for our members and all victims of asbestos.

"The Court of Appeal decision has left a black hole in the
protection that employers' liability insurance was intended to
provide.

"Insurance companies sold policies to cover risk.  When the risk
became a reality some resorted to picking apart the words in their
own policies."

Mr. McCluskey said it was illogical that the right to compensation
depended on the wording used in insurance contracts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Present in Nine Suffolk Schools
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that nine of Suffolk, Virginia's
public schools are laden with asbestos, but the district is coping
with the problem slowly but surely, notes an article in the
Suffolk News Herald.

According to the article by Emily Collins, the city has given the
district $75,000 every two years for the removal of hazardous
materials in the public schools.  This includes asbestos removal.
However, says Terry Napier, the director of facilities for the
district, most often the money has been used to maintain the
material rather than remove it.

"What the [EPA] regulations did was come up with laws as to how
you would treat existing asbestos in school buildings," he said.
"Removal was not required, and it still isn't, unless the
materials are damaged."

Napier notes that the existing asbestos in the nine schools --
which include Driver, Elephant's Fork, Florence Bowser, Kilby
Shores, Nansemond Parkway and Southwestern elementary schools and
Forest Glen, John F. Kennedy and John Yeates middle schools -- is
closely monitored and official inspections are conducted every
three years.  The district also checks the asbestos "in-house"
twice a year and maintenance staff is trained in recognizing
asbestos-related problems.  This is in accordance with the EPA's
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act.

Mr. Napier says they haven't encountered an emergency situation at
this point but have had to replace aging and damaged asbestos
floor tiles on occasion.  Damaged asbestos presents a hazard when
flakes of the material become airborne, where they can be inhaled.
Asbestos that becomes lodged in the lungs can later cause
mesothelioma cancer.

Mr. Napier believes the money currently allotted for hazardous
material removal simply isn't enough, especially as the Suffolk
schools continue to age.  He's asked the city for $50,000 a year
to address concerns.

"What we are trying to do is ensure we don't come to the end of
the two years and not have the funds if we need," Mr. Napier
stressed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas County Grants $90T for Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Neuffer at The Record-Courier reports that on Nov. 29,
Douglas County (Nev.) school board members approved a roughly
$90,000 contract with APC Contractors, Inc., for the mitigation of
asbestos-related materials throughout various areas of
Gardnerville Elementary School.

According to Scott McCullough, the school district's new project
manager, the materials are only hazardous during renovation or
demolition if they become "friable."

Mr. McCullough said some areas of the multipurpose room and the
100 and 200 halls of the school have old vinyl tiles, pipe
insulation, and coating for tube-steel frames that contain
hazardous materials.

The plan is for mitigation to take place on Christmas break and
after-school hours in January and February, with the affected
areas sealed off.

"They will never do the work during instructional hours," Mr.
McCullough said.

Funding for mitigation will come from the continuation bond
approved by voters in 2008.  The same funds were tapped for the
$6.1 million makeover of the district's oldest school.
Construction began in October and is expected to be finished by
the start of the 2012 school year.

According to builder Core Construction, the new campus will entail
57,872 square feet.

The old multipurpose room will be razed, and a new entrance will
be created between the existing office and the Heritage Building.
The path will take visitors to a new multipurpose room, offices
and classrooms, set near the soccer field, and will provide more
parking while rerouting traffic to the southwest exit.

The district is considering selling the Heritage building, which
was built in 1917 but has become unsuitable for classrooms.

Mr. McCullough said the other areas of the school in need of
mitigation were built in the 1970s or earlier.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Way to Replace Old Asbestos Pipes Offered
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Attinger at NewsChief.com reports that a local contractor
thinks he may have found a better way to deal with old asbestos
concrete pipes.

The best part about it, said Sam Killebrew, owner and president of
Killebrew Inc. construction and engineering company in Lakeland,
is that no one will have to dig the pipes up.

They can stay buried in the ground, replaced by new pipes through
a process that he and other contractors have used for years for
other kinds of pipes.

But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasn't yet been sold
on the idea for disposing of the pipes that are considered a
serious health threat.  And until it is, pipe bursting will not be
used to replace asbestos concrete pipes.

Mr. Killebrew and other industry representatives have asked
members of the Ridge League of Cities and the Florida League of
Cities to lend support to using "pipe bursting" to deal with old
asbestos concrete water and sewer pipes.

Steven A. Dutch, senior engineering consultant with Chastain-
Skillman Inc., spoke to the Frostproof City Council on Nov. 21
about it, and the council approved a resolution to support it.

"Pipe bursting" is a technique used to replace water, sewer and
gas lines by pulling an expander head through old pipe to break it
up while towing new pipe behind it.

Pieces of the old pipe are pushed into the surrounding soil.

It saves having to dig open trenches and limits disruption in
heavily built-up areas, Mr. Killebrew said.

For at least two years, Mr. Killebrew has talked with government
officials at both the state and federal levels, including to the
EPA Enforcement Division in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 23, 2010, in
hopes that the EPA will consider pipe bursting as an
"administrative alternate" to the standard procedure.

At this point, EPA officials in Washington, D.C., have said
discussions are still in progress on his proposal, and no decision
has been made.

Frostproof Mayor Kay Hutzelman noted that Mr. Killebrew had spent
time in Washington on this, to which Mr. Dutch said Mr. Killebrew
also has spent "a lot of his own money."

So far, Mr. Killebrew said, that amount is $200,000.

Mr. Killebrew said a lot of asbestos concrete pipe in the ground
now is reaching the end of its useful life, and will need to be
replaced.

The EPA lists asbestos as a mineral fiber used in building
materials: Strong and heat-resistant, but also a hazard.

When it's damaged or disturbed by repairs, remodeling or
demolition, it releases microscopic asbestos fibers into the air.
If inhaled, they can cause lung problems such as asbestosis, lung
cancer or mesothelioma, according to the EPA.

To replace old asbestos pipe, the EPA requires contractors to dig
up the pipe, suit up workers, tent the site, bag up the pipe and
have a licensed disposal company collect the bags and haul them to
a hazardous waste landfill.

Mr. Killebrew, however, is suggesting leaving the burst pipe in
the ground.

The EPA requires disposed asbestos concrete to be buried at least
12 inches deep in a landfill, but water and sewer lines are
already from 3 to 20 feet deep, Mr. Killebrew said.

When Mr. Killebrew and representatives of TT Technologies Inc. -
an Illinois-based pipe bursting and directional boring equipment
supplier - gave a presentation to the EPA last November, they
explained how pipe bursting might dispose of asbestos concrete
pipe fragments by pushing them into the surrounding soil, where
they remain buried.

Mr. Killebrew said EPA officials were concerned that buried
asbestos fibers might still migrate to the surface, but he found
that unlikely.

The EPA's National Emissions Standards for Harmful Air Pollutants
requires sites with buried asbestos to be fenced off and the
asbestos noted on the land deed, but Mr. Killebrew said most
asbestos pipes are buried in road rights of way, which have no
deed and can't be fenced off.

However, Mr. Killebrew said cities and other entities that own the
pipes could note the burst asbestos pipes on water line plans so
that information is available to any person or company -- like his
-- when they call before digging on a site.

Mr. Killebrew also said in his presentation that less excavation
could reduce sediment runoff, commuter delays, fuel costs, and
both air and noise pollution from construction equipment.

Pipe bursting started in the 1970s in Europe as a way to replace
gas lines where narrow streets and heavy development makes digging
a trench expensive and disruptive, Mr. Killebrew said.

Since then, the technique has been applied to most types of water
and sewer lines both there and the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contamination Found at Harbor Square Bldg.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Numerous potential health and safety hazards were identified at
the Harbor Square apartment complex in downtown Hampton, Va., by
inspectors who checked out the property in advance of its purchase
by the city of Hampton, according to documents obtained by the
Daily Press.

David Macaulay of the Daily Press reported that the problems
detailed in a conditional assessment report in October included
asbestos, mold, lead-based paint, roach infestation, rusting and
failing stairways, a broken sanitary sewer system, and furnaces
leaking exhaust directly into units.  The city estimated it would
cost $4.5 million to $5 million to repair Harbor Square.

At the time, Hampton faced the prospect of running Harbor Square
as an apartment complex for about four years before it could be
demolished.  It had offered to buy the property from Olde Town
Associates LLC for $14.5 million.

After carrying out inspections that revealed the poor condition of
complex, the city agreed to buy the property for $13.4 million.
Harbor Square has 368 units and was built in 1969.

The purchase assumed a $12.6 million loan from the Virginia
Housing Development Authority.  The city agreed in November to the
purchase Harbor Square after the VHDA waived a penalty for early
repayment of the loan, a move that would allow Hampton to demolish
Harbor Square in a matter of months.

City Attorney Cynthia Hudson -- chudson@hampton.gov -- confirmed
Friday, Dec. 2, the city closed on the property on Dec. 1.

Citing "working papers" as its exemption, the city declined a
Freedom of Information request to detail both code violations it
has brought against the former owners and documents related to the
condition of the property.  Ms. Hudson did, however, make the
conditional assessment available.

The document confirms many of the problems uncovered in a recent
Daily Press Watchdog report and highlights others that could be a
potential health concern for residents.

Material containing asbestos was found in roof tar and flooring
glue.  It's unclear if this is the most dangerous form of
asbestos, known as friable asbestos because it can crumble,
releasing hazardous fibers into the air.

According to the Florida-based Mesothelioma Center, roof material
is usually non friable because asbestos fibers are bound or locked
into place.  But it can be made friable if damaged or altered.
Hampton's inspectors found the roof at Harbor Square to be
failing.  And the report says: "Asbestos may be exposed in areas
where flooring is damaged or missing."

Dr. Arthur Frank, chairman of Drexel University's Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health, previously said in a Daily
Press story any exposure to asbestos increases the risks of
developing mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: YMCA Demolition in Hannibal Starts
---------------------------------------------------
Danny Henley at the Hannibal Courier-Post reports that demolition
of the old YMCA in Hannibal, Montana, was slated to begin sometime
Monday, Dec. 5, according to Tina Bartz, management assistant in
the city's public works department.

"Emory Smashey found an asbestos supervisor and plans to start
Monday morning," said Ms. Bartz, noting that Mr. Smashey, who is
the contractor for the project, was given the notice to proceed on
Nov. 29.  "That gave him the right to hire a supervisor."

The city received additional positive news on Dec. 1 regarding
what specialized personnel it would have to hire and have on hand
when the razing of the building takes place.

After preliminary discussions with the state, city building
inspector Joey Burnham was left with the impression that the city
would have to hire both an asbestos inspector and an asbestos
removal supervisor.  Until that distinction was made by the state
it was assumed they were one in the same.

According to the DNR, there are subtle differences.  A certified
asbestos inspector must conduct all inspections and assessments.
An asbestos abatement supervisor is an individual who directs,
controls, or supervises others in asbestos abatement projects.
Being required to have one of each would have added at least a few
thousand dollars to the total cost of the project.  Because there
are no asbestos inspection supervisors in the immediate area, one
would have to be paid not only for their time on site, but for
their travel.  The last time the city hired an asbestos inspector,
which was to oversee demolition of the Pafford building at 1236
Market St. in November 2010; it cost $150 an hour.

Mr. Burnham says that the DNR recently conferred with the Klingner
and Associate's inspector who performed last month's asbestos
inspection at the old YMCA and discovered small amounts of the
material in a few locations.  After that discussion the state
concluded an asbestos inspector would not have to be on hand
during the entire demolition.

"Non-friable" asbestos was found in the building during last
month's test.  "Non-friable" asbestos is less likely to release
fibers because they are bound or locked into place.  Asbestos was
found in the tar caulking around the roof's parapet wall, in
caulking around windows and in the tile and mastic on stair
landings.

The contractor will have 45 working days to complete the project.
The clock started when all the project's documents were signed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Mesothelioma Victim Appeals for Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Irwin Mitchell published that the devastated widow of a
former Bridgnorth factory worker who died of an asbestos-related
disease has launched an emotional appeal to win justice for her
husband by asking people who worked with him to come forward with
vital information.

Terence Amos -- who was called "Terry" by family and friends --
was 70 when he died.  He is believed to have been exposed to
deadly asbestos dust during his employment with London Aluminium
Co Ltd and Star Wrought Products Ltd, both of which have since
ceased trading.

Mr. Amos, who lived in Bridgnorth, Shropshire was diagnosed with
mesothelioma; a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, in November
2008 and sadly died 16 months later on the 27th March 2010.

An inquest held by HM Deputy Coroner for Wolverhampton, Mr.
Smillie in July 2010 confirmed that Mr. Amos had died from an
industrial disease.

With the help of specialist lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, Terry's
widow, Romary, is now seeking people who worked with her husband
who may be able to provide additional information as to how he
came into contact with the lethal fibers.

She believes his health problems were caused by two possible
sources.  He worked for London Aluminium Co Ltd based in Witton,
Birmingham between 1956 and 1960.  He returned to the company in
1961 when they had moved to Heathmill Lane, Wombourne in
Staffordshire and he stayed with them until 1971.  His job was as
a metal spinner and involved working with asbestos lined furnaces.
There was also an occasion when he was responsible for dismantling
sheds with corrugated asbestos roofs.  It is believed Mr. Amos was
also exposed to asbestos during his employment with Star Wrought
Products Ltd based on Stanmore Industrial Estate, Bridgnorth
between 1971 and 1973 where he worked as a supervisor of factory
staff.

Commenting on her husband's death, Romary Amos said: "Terry and I
had been married for 35 years.  When we were told about his
diagnosis we were both completely devastated.  This terrible
illness took him so very quickly and he suffered a great deal in
the last months of his life.

"My husband worked hard all his life and to know that his work was
ultimately responsible for his death is hard to bear.  Our family
have also been devastated by his death and we are all desperate to
see justice is done."

Kim Barrett -- kim.barrett@irwinmitchell.com -- a workplace
illness expert with Irwin Mitchell solicitor's Birmingham office,
is representing the family.  She said: "Even in the 1960s and 70s
employers knew of the risks associated with asbestos and the
dangers of inhaling lethal fibers.

"Mesothelioma is an asbestos related cancer for which there is
sadly no cure.  Although it can take upwards of 20 years from
exposure to onset of the illness, once diagnosed it can be very
aggressive and painful.

"In order to help his widow conclude her fight for justice, I am
particularly keen to hear from workers from London Aluminium Co
Ltd in Witton and Heathmill Lane from 1956 to 1971 and Star
Wrought Products Ltd workers in the Bridgnorth area from 1971 to
1973 as they may have key information about the presence of
asbestos and working practices at these premises."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Mesothelioma Victim Pleas for Witnesses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Irwin Mitchell published that the devastated widow of a
man who died of an asbestos-related illness is asking people who
may have worked with him to come forward.

Devoted father-of-two and grandfather-of-four, Peter Duesbery was
72 when he died in April 2009 from malignant mesothelioma -- a
cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Duesbery's family believes his health problems may have been
caused by working as a maintenance engineer at Halifax General
Hospital from 1965 to 1970 and St James's Hospital, Leeds, from
1970 to 1975.

They believe steam and hot water pipes were lagged with asbestos
which ran through ducts and the boiler room where Mr. Duesbery
spent a lot of his time.

With the help of lawyers Irwin Mitchell, Mr. Duesbury's family is
looking for anyone who can shed light on how he came into contact
with the fibers.

Mr. Duesbury's wife, Marlene said: "Peter's mesothelioma was
suspected, but not confirmed, before he died.  To now know his
work is what killed him is hard to bear.  We are all devastated by
his death and desperate to see justice done.

"When Peter became ill and went to see the doctor, he was asked
whether he had been exposed to asbestos.  Peter mentioned his time
in the merchant navy and when he worked in hospital service
ducts."

Simone Hardy -- hardy@irwinmitchell.com, an asbestos specialist at
Irwin Mitchell who is representing the family, said: "Peter's
family are anxious to find any witnesses and I would urge anyone
who has experiences to share about working for either hospital in
the 1960s and 1970s to come forward as soon as possible.

"If anyone can remember working with Peter, and the type of tasks
he used to carry out, please get in touch.

"Asbestos-related diseases have a devastating impact on so many
lives and exposure to the material is widely regarded as the
biggest occupational killer of all time.

"While it is sadly too late for Peter and so many others, we hope
our work on gaining justice for the families of those negligently
exposed to asbestos will help raise awareness of its devastating
consequences and spare more people from heartache in the future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout Eyed at GBP250M If 4 Insurers Lose
----------------------------------------------------------
The Independent posted that a legal battle to determine whether
tens of thousands of asbestos-related cancer victims and their
families will be compensated was to be heard by the Supreme Court
on Dec. 5, 2011.

Four insurance companies are trying to restrict payments to
workers dying from mesothelioma, by claiming that employers'
liability is restricted to when the lethal tumors start to develop
instead of when the victims were exposed to the deadly dust.
Decades can pass before the cancer develops.  If the insurers
lose, the compensation bill could be in excess of GBP250 million.

Asbestos exposure is the biggest killer in the British workforce,
causing more than 4,000 deaths each year -- more than road traffic
accidents.  Deaths in the UK are not expected to peak until 2016.

The outcome of the case will influence the creation of a
Government "fund of last resort" for victims of asbestos exposure
but who cannot trace their employers' insurers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stourport Resident Succumbs to Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuttle reports that a 65-year-old Stourport (U.K.) man who
was exposed to asbestos at work died after developing a form of
cancer, an inquest heard.

Michael Pearce, of Bewdley Road, developed mesothelioma -- cancer
of the thin membrane that lines the chest and abdomen -- after
being exposed to asbestos during his working life.

Mr. Pearce's health deteriorated and he was admitted into
Wolverhampton's New Cross Hospital for surgery.

Mr. Pearce was discharged home but his health continued to
deteriorate and he was re-admitted to the hospital where he died,
on July 30.

A verdict of death as the result of an industrial disease was
recorded at the inquest into his death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FM Kevin Rudd Commits AU to Lead Global Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
The radio program AM With Tony Eastly reports that Australia's
Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has called for a global ban on
asbestos, and he succeeded on Sunday, Dec. 4, in having the Labor
Party agree that Australia lead the push to shut the industry
down.

More than one third of the world's nations, particularly
developing countries in Asia, are expanding their use of asbestos.
Health experts fear that continued use of the cancer-causing
mineral will only see a big rise in deaths.

Matt Peacock at ABC says that four years ago, just three days
after Rudd had became prime minister, the asbestos activist he'd
met during the election campaign, Bernie Banton, died from
mesothelioma.

On Sunday, Dec. 4, the now-Foreign Minister reminded delegates of
Banton's struggle as he moved an amendment to Labor Party policy
that commits Australia to lead the global effort towards an
asbestos-free world.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said: "Based on this amendment
Australia in 2012 will convene a global conference in partnership
with a global alliance against asbestos hazards and the
International Labor Organization.  If we realize this ambition, we
will at last have fulfilled the dream, the last dying dream of
Bernie Banton and at last Bernie can rest in peace."

Peacock related that the Australian Council of Trade Union's
president Ged Kearney welcomes the international commitment, made
stronger, she said, because it will be the Foreign Minister whose
spearheading the diplomatic effort.

The greatest growth of the asbestos industry is occurring in Asia,
where both China and India are rapidly increasing their usage of
asbestos cement building products.

Coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, Laurie
Kazan-Allen told ABC: "Every year about two million tons of
asbestos is being sold.  This means that many countries in the
developing world are being inundated with asbestos fiber and these
countries don't have the wherewithal or the knowledge to actually
safeguard their workers or members of the public.

"The result is that asbestos is being used in places like India as
just any raw material and all along the production cycle people
are being exposed and we know that the result of such exposures in
30, 40 years time is going to be a wave of asbestos-related
diseases just like we've seen in Australia."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Students Raise Concerns
-------------------------------------------------
Andrea Lorfel at The Eastern Echo reports that the use of
asbestos, a mineral fiber usually found in construction materials,
is a topic stirring emotions at Eastern Michigan University.

Ellen Bernard, EMU's Environmental Health and Safety Specialist in
Snow Health Center thinks asbestos is just part of life.  When
questioned about whether or not there was, in fact, asbestos in
the building Bernard dismissed the subject.  "So?  There is
asbestos in a whole lot of buildings on this campus," Bernard
said.

Ms. Bernard then went on to say she would not discuss asbestos and
walked away.  Answers like Bernard's haven't eased any fear in
Pittman residents who have noticed the yellow asbestos 'caution
tape.'

Pittman Hall resident Carly Gantt, an aviation management major,
asked two of Pittman Hall's residential advisors questions about
the tape.  Gantt was told to wait it out, and that the asbestos
problem is on the same level as not having hot water or heat.

"I was told that the tape was put up as a precaution while fixing
a pipe that burst," said Gantt, who dealt with no building heat
and unreliable water temperatures for about three weeks along with
many other residents.  "That didn't make me feel very safe or
comfortable."

History major Justin Langel said he has seen workers dressed in
protective coveralls and breathing masks.  Workers didn't offer
Langel many solutions after he inquired about the problem either.

Langel said he was told, "The asbestos is part of life, and we are
going to have to live with it."

But knowing the dangers of asbestos and that the material remains
in many campus buildings, both Langel and Gantt said they're
irritated at the way housing staff brushed their concerns off so
easily.

Same goes for criminal justice major Max Carson, another resident
of Pittman.  Carson recently found out he is living in an area
where there is potentially harmful asbestos.  This upset him.

"I am really pissed that we were not informed and want the
university to find a way to compensate us," Carson said.

Geoff Larcom, executive director of media relations at EMU,
stressed that students come first.  There is no question whether
the university would notify students if their health was at risk.

There was concern over a leaking pipe in Pittman as well.  Some
were worried it would disturb asbestos in the building.  However,
the pipe has not evolved into a full-fledged issue yet.

Since the pipe is located in a hallway and not in a student
residence hall, students were not notified.  If the pipe was in a
student's room, on the other hand, Kathryn Willhoff, Director of
Environmental Health and Safety, said the university would have
notified said student.  To Willhoff, students deserve necessary
precaution, especially in cases dealing with asbestos danger.

"I think that new procedures need to be implemented when it comes
to asbestos," Willhoff said.  "There aren't any laws that require
the university to notify students of asbestos in buildings, but I
think that we need to meet with Brian Fitzgerald from housing to
make these changes, and I will be talking to him.  My department
is in charge of the right to know law, which is basic hazardous
awareness safety for student employees."

Although residents living in Pittman were not warned of the
asbestos, Willhoff wants to assure students the problem has not
been ignored.  The university hired licensed contractors to remove
poison from the asbestos, which was not disturbed during the
process.  The contractors followed all state laws and regulations,
and no dangerous levels were emitted at anytime during the
removal.

Accordingly, Willhoff said students do not need to worry about the
fact it takes 10-20 years for people exposed to dangerous levels
of poison in asbestos to have any kind of reaction.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains the risks of
developing types of cancer, particularly, a disease called
Asbestosis.  Asbestosis is a lung disease for which there is no
effective treatment yet.

Additionally, two common cancers caused by asbestos are lung
cancer and mesothelioma.

Until the 1970s, asbestos was used in the construction of homes
and buildings for insulation and fire retardant, according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  It rarely used nowadays
because of the health hazards.  But several old buildings in
Michigan, such as EMU's Physical Plant, still contain the
hazardous material.

A plan in terms of abatement should disturbance to asbestos occur
is available on the physical plants' Web site.

Unless asbestos is disturbed in some way, students, faculty and
staff will not be threatened.  This is the reason why Willhoff
said the best defense against asbestos is avoiding interruption.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Gets More Time to Up Safety Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Pearce reporting for The Windsor Star relates that the
city is granting developer Lou Vozza a second extension to bring
former Grace Hospital site up to safety standards, according to a
council report.

Vozza requested the deadline be pushed back until April 30.  But
in a report going to council on Dec. 4, chief building official
Lee Anne Doyle writes Mr. Vozza will be given until Jan. 30 to
complete environmental health and safety recommendations made by
an environmental consultant.  "Administration does not support the
extension to April 30, 2012," said Doyle.

The city's property standards committee ordered Vozza to ensure
the property was free of fire hazards and unsafe conditions, such
as asbestos, last September.

"If he does not comply by Jan. 30, 2012, then the city will go in,
do the asbestos abatement and seek demolition of the property,"
Councilor Al Maghnieh said on Dec. 4.  "But we still risk the
mortgagees being able to appeal that."

Mr. Vozza appealed an order to repair in October and was granted
an extension until Nov. 30.  So far, Vozza has met many of the
requirements, but still has not provided night security of the
site, which was requested by the city.

Mr. Vozza still needs to secure some of the openings in the
building and remove debris and piles of aggregate being stored on
site.

The inspectors report, conducted Nov. 24, determined no asbestos
or containments were present in samples taken from the building.

"Administration has been working in a very aggressive manner to
see this property is dealt with once and for all and is cleaned
up," Maghnieh said.  "I know that council is extremely anxious to
see that happen."

Mr. Vozza made an indemnity deposit of $13,371 when he initially
picked up his demolition permit and has since requested it be
refunded.  However, administration has refused to return the
money.  Vozza still owes more than $1 million in back taxes for
the property.

A $30-million, 256-bed long-term care home was originally intended
for the site, but the province pulled the project in June after
Vozza failed to meet several government deadlines.

Mr. Vozza could not be reached on the weekend for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Irish Law to Compensate Affected Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The BBC News Northern Ireland reports that people suffering from
the asbestos-related lung condition pleural plaques will soon be
able to seek compensation due to new legislation.

Finance Minister Sammy Wilson said the legislation to allow
workers to pursue claims would become effective from Dec. 14.

The executive has already set aside GBP2.5 million for claims.

The legislation reverses a House of Lords decision of 2007 which
ruled victims could not claim compensation.

Similar legislation in Scotland was the subject of a long-running
challenge initiated by insurers, which went before the UK Supreme
Court.

In October this year, the Supreme Court rejected the insurers'
claims that the legislation infringed their human rights and was
outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

"The challenge to the corresponding legislation in Scotland cast a
long shadow and I fought hard to get the Northern Ireland
legislation through the assembly and submitted for royal assent,"
Mr. Wilson said.

"However, I always believed that the policy objectives of the act
were just and fair and that belief has now been vindicated by the
ruling of the UK Supreme Court in relation to the Scottish
legislation.

"The 2011 act may be short and targeted, but it is a vitally
important act, which seeks to ensure the continued availability of
a method of redress for ordinary working men and women."

Pleural plaques -- small areas of benign scarring on the lungs --
are not themselves a disease and have no symptoms, but the
thickening of lung membranes is an indicator of past exposure to
asbestos.

They signify an increased risk of developing the disease
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Head Lord Phillips to Hear Mesothelioma Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The London Evening Standard reports that victims of asbestos-
related cancer and their families are hoping that a Supreme Court
case that is due to start will clarify a "complex" area of the law
in their fight for damages.

Following a Court of Appeal ruling in October 2010 lawyers said
many victims faced more "confusion and uncertainty" over who can
be compensated and it was now a matter of "pot luck".

Five Supreme Court justices, headed by the court's president Lord
Phillips, will now hear appeals arising out of six separate test
case actions over eight days.

The proceedings will centre on the question of when liability is
"triggered" -- either at the time of exposure to asbestos or at
the onset of symptoms.

Insurers won a partial victory in the 2010 Court of Appeal ruling
which found that only some sufferers could recover damages for the
injuries they sustained at work decades ago.

The three judges were unable to agree on a High Court ruling given
in November 2008 -- hailed as a victory for the victims -- that
employers' insurers at the time of exposure were liable to pay out
on claims for the fatal lung disease mesothelioma caused by
exposure to lethal asbestos in the workplace.

Instead, they found that in some cases the responsibility lay with
the employers' insurers at the onset of symptoms, which in some
cases is 50 or 60 years later.

The appeals before the Supreme Court arise from the deaths from
mesothelioma of employees who inhaled asbestos fibers during
employment.

In each case the employees' personal representatives, or the
employers liable to them, seek to recover loss from the employers'
insurers under policies of employers' liability insurance covering
periods from the late 1940s to 1998.

The principal issue to be determined by the highest court in the
land is what constitutes the "trigger" for liability of an insurer
to indemnify the insured within any policy period -- in particular
"whether it is the tortuous exposure of a victim to asbestos dust
or the onset of mesothelioma".

Expert lawyer Helen Ashton -- helen.ashton@irwinmitchell.com --
from Irwin Mitchell, who is representing one of the lead
claimants, said: "Whilst we are hoping for the judgment to be
handed down as swiftly as possible, it is more important that,
once a decision is reached, it provides clarity once and for all
for all parties involved in this very complex case."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Judge Slams Law Firm for Inaction
-------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that a Nevada judge says an
out-of-state asbestos law firm did not do enough to ensure its
client was adequately represented.

On Nov. 21, Washoe County District Judge David Hardy dismissed the
lawsuit filed in April by Theodore Butler, who died two months
later.  Judge Hardy ruled that his counsel, the California firm
Brayton Purcell -- http://www.braytonlaw.com/-- did not find a
new attorney for Butler's lawsuit after Stephen Healy resigned
from the firm.

Healy was the only Brayton Purcell attorney who resided in Nevada
and was licensed to practice law there.  As such, he was
responsible for all work performed for Nevada clients, including
Butler.

Healy signed and circulated a motion to withdraw as counsel on
June 20 and changed his bar registration to inactive status.
Through his own fault, the motion was not filed until Sept. 6, and
Hardy ruled no other attorney took over as counsel and no new
representative of Butler's interests was established in the 90-day
period following Healy's motion.

"Inaction is not good faith," Judge Hardy wrote.  "Brayton Purcell
only had three Nevada matters.  It had substantial attorney and
paraprofessional resources.  It knew Healy was the only resident
attorney member of the firm.

"Healy announced his resignation four months before the
substitution was required.  It affirmatively knew its duty to
substitute a proper party and it was engaged in other case matters
when it tendered a costs security check in August."

During his time representing Butler, Healy signed an amended
complaint on May 11 and received a letter from Ford Motor Company
asking him to preserve Butler's lung tissues following his death.

After Healy's June 20 withdrawal motion was circulated, Brayton
Purcell attempted to find a replacement.  In August, it sent a
letter and check to the court to pay security for costs.

Judge Hardy wrote that the firm did not find a new attorney until
Sept. 22 -- eight days after the 90-day period for filing a
substitution expired.  He granted the motion to dismiss filed on
Oct. 14 by Western Nevada Supply.

"While Healy was at liberty to end his employment with Brayton
Purcell, he was not at liberty to abandon his Nevada clients'
interests," Judge Hardy wrote.  "He was the only Nevada attorney
for the firm.

"No other Brayton Purcell attorney could continue the
representation.  Healy accepted certain obligations when he
accepted the designation of resident attorney members."

The judge added that the firm accepted certain risks by entering
the Nevada market with only one attorney and should have had a
succession model in its business plan.  He also ruled that the
defendants were harmed by the firm's inaction because of the issue
of lung tissue preservation.

"This request was made at a time when Brayton Purcell did not have
a resident attorney member in Nevada as required by the rules of
professional conduct," Judge Hardy wrote.  "Brayton Purcell has
not demonstrated that it complied with the request or that the
request was legally untenable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Wins 6th Cir. Ruling in Mesothelioma Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed
the judgment and effectively rendered judgment against the
plaintiff in Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC's favor.

The plaintiff, Olwen Moeller, individually and as executrix for
the estate of Robert L. Moeller, sued Garlock alleging Mr.
Moeller's work as a pipefitter with asbestos-containing gaskets
made by Garlock were a substantial cause of his mesothelioma.
Plaintiff supported her claims with expert testimony from Arthur
Frank, MD, Richard Hatfield, and one of Mr. Moeller's treating
oncologists, Charles Webb, MD.

The Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiff had failed to
prove that Garlock's products were a substantial cause of Mr.
Moeller's mesothelioma as a matter of law.  The Chief Judge for
the Sixth Circuit, writing for the majority, explained: "On the
basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was
a substantial cause of Robert's mesothelioma would be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume."

Schachter Harris, LLP, represented Garlock Sealing Technologies,
LLC, in an appeal of a judgment against Garlock entered by the US
District Court in Louisville, Ken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Exit Plan to Create $200M Trust Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC filed a proposed Chapter 11 plan
and disclosure statement on Nov. 28.

According to Bloomberg News, as it has done from the outset,
Garlock again said in the disclosure statement that all asbestos
claims should be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to
allow continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

"The company has property that substantially exceeds the costs
necessary to resolve and pay in full all colorable [Garlock]
asbestos claims," the disclosure statement said, according to
Amanda Bransford at BankruptcyLaw360.

The Mesothelioma Center reports that Garlock promises to pay
approximately 100,000 asbestos-related injury claims against the
company.

Garlock, in November submitted to a North Carolina bankruptcy
judge its plan to exit Chapter 11.  The plan will create a trust
fund payment for current and future asbestos claimants.

Through the plan, Garlock will allocate $60 million for future
claims in addition to promise of a further $140 million, which
will be secured by 51% of the company's stock.

Such a move should streamline the process for all asbestos claims
aimed at the company and may minimize the company's financial
exposure and liability for each claim.

Garlock manufactured asbestos-containing products including seals,
gaskets, pump packing, hydraulic components, and valve packing, in
addition to other items.  Their products are used in countless
industries ranging from mining to pharmaceutical areas.

Asbestos exposure from such products has been proven to cause
cancers like mesothelioma, which claims the lives of 2,000 to
3,000 people per year.

The company has been on the receiving end of litigation claims for
years, including some notable awards in the past decade.  In 2006,
Garlock was involved in a $10 million jury award to the family of
a former shipyard worker who died from cancer.  In 2007, the
company was involved in a claim that resulted in a recovery of
$9.25 million to the victim's family of another shipyard worker.

In the proposed exit plan, claimants will then be able to decide
to have their claims determined through a settlement or through
litigation.

The submitted plan comes days after the company conducted a layoff
of 14 employees.  In 2009, the company laid off 10% of its
workforce to battle slowed growth.  Garlock is the largest
employer in Palmyra, N.Y., where the company is based.

Bloomberg says the draft disclosure statement has blanks where the
estimated amounts of asbestos claims later will be inserted. The
plan was filed on the day the exclusive fight to file a plan was
expiring. Garlock has the exclusive right to solicit plan
acceptances until Jan. 26.

Unsecured creditors with $1.5 million in claims are to be paid in
full. If confirmed, the plan will give releases to EnPro and all
subsidiaries. Previously, Garlock said $194 million of insurance
was remaining.

Garlock, a subsidiary of EnPro Industries Inc., filed under
Chapter 11 in June 2010 to deal with the last 100,000 asbestos
claims.  Non-bankrupt affiliates are defendants on 30,000 claims.
The case is In re Sealing Technologies LLC, 10-31607, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Western District North Carolina (Charlotte).

EnPro had assets of $1.24 billion and total liabilities of $714.1
million on the Sept. 30 balance sheet. Net income for EnPro was
$41.6 million for the first three quarters of 2011 on net sales of
$834 million. For 2010, net income was $155.4 million on $865
million in net sales.

EnPro makes engineered products, including diesel and natural-gas
engines. It has 44 plants in the U.S. plus operations in 10 other
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Hazard Bldg Tenants in Calgary Evacuated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Potkins at Calgary Herald reports that tenants on the brink
of being evicted from a complex officially declared "unfit for
human habitation" lined up at a community hall Monday, Dec. 5 for
help finding temporary accommodations before the Dec. 15 deadline
to vacate the building.

The residents have been ordered to vacate their homes just days
before Christmas after their landlord failed to comply with two
court orders, the first in March, to remedy multiple health and
safety concerns at the Huntington Hills building.

Social agencies are helping, and some Calgarians have come forward
to offer assistance.

The complex at 412 Huntsville Crescent N.W. is home to more than
90 residents, many of them low-income seniors and new Canadians
who are struggling to find affordable accommodation in a matter of
days.

One resident said she found out that she was being kicked out on
Dec. 1, right after she had paid her rent for the month.

"We're not going to find something unless they help us," said a
senior resident named Joyce, who declined to give her last name.
"It takes all of our money just to go from month to month."

Alberta Health Services has tapped social agencies in the city to
help with relocating residents.  On Monday they met with some of
the worst off to identify possible solutions.

"It's such a terrible situation that these tenants have been put
in by this landlord," said Lynne Navratil, a supervisor with
Alberta Health Services.  "But our main concern has to be the
health and safety of these tenants."

Ms. Navratil said the province tries to work with landlords to
provide time to address hazards identified by health inspectors,
but in this case, the landlord failed to comply with several
orders including a court order to bring in a trained mould and
asbestos consultant.

"There are a variety of very serious health concerns in this
building (including) long-term mould concerns, security concerns,
fire safety and also a possible or likely asbestos concern," said
Navratil.

Building owner Harkrishan Jaswal had begun renovations of several
units in recent months but failed to complete all of the repairs
in time.

Mr. Jaswal has so far declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk Schools Earmark $75T for Removal
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Collins at Suffolk News Herald reports it's been more than
20 years since asbestos was determined to be dangerous, but
Suffolk Public Schools is still coping with the ramifications of
its former widespread use in building materials.

Since the federal government started regulating the use of
asbestos in public buildings, the school division has assigned
funds specifically to deal with asbestos in some of the schools.

Terry Napier, the school division's director of facilities and
planning, said the city has allocated about $75,000 to the schools
every two years to deal with removal of hazardous materials,
including asbestos.

However, he said, the money isn't usually used to remove the
material.

"What the regulations did was come up with laws as to how you
would treat existing asbestos in school buildings," he said.
"Removal was not required, and it still isn't, unless the
materials are damaged."

Asbestos, which is a naturally occurring mineral fiber, was widely
used in building materials from the late 19th century until about
the 1990s, according to the Environmental Protection Agency
website.

Napier said nine of Suffolk's public schools still have asbestos
materials in them -- Driver, Elephant's Fork, Florence Bowser,
Kilby Shores, Nansemond Parkway and Southwestern elementary
schools and Forest Glen, John F. Kennedy and John Yeates middle
schools.

Schools built after the 1980s, such as Nansemond River High School
and Creekside Elementary School, are in the clear.

"All of those schools would have no asbestos building materials in
them," Napier said.

While asbestos can create health risks, Napier said, the school's
students and staff aren't necessarily in danger if asbestos is in
the building.

Materials containing asbestos typically become hazardous only if
they become damaged or deteriorated and release asbestos fibers
into the air, according to the EPA website.

"As long as it remains intact, you don't have to do anything with
it," Napier said. "For our schools in Suffolk, it applies
primarily to pipe insulations. There were also floor tiles that
used asbestos installed in some of the schools."

Still, the schools that have asbestos are very closely monitored.

"We have to have all of these schools (with asbestos) inspected
every three years," Napier said.

For the three-year check-up, he said, the schools hire an EPA-
certified industrial hygiene contractor to examine the building.

"We also have to check it in-house twice a year," Napier said.

On top of the close examinations, there are also strict
regulations on how the schools should remove asbestos if they want
to do a renovation.

Napier said there have been multiple occasions where the division
decided to replace floor tiles that contain asbestos just because
they were aging, and a special contractor has had to come in for
the removal.

He added the entire procedure for the removal is expensive, so
separate funds are needed.

In addition to the repairs, he said, the money could be used if
asbestos needs to be removed immediately because it becomes
damaged, but it's not common.

"We haven't had a situation where something became damaged and we
had to go in and do an emergency repair," he said.

While the city gives the school division money for hazardous
materials every two years, this year the division has asked the
city to allocate $50,000 a year instead.

"What we are trying to do is ensure we don't come to the end of
the two years and not have the funds if we need," Napier said.

While many of the buildings still have asbestos in them, Napier
said, a good deal of the material has been replaced.

One of the most recent removals was at John Yeates Middle School,
where floor tiles were replaced this summer.

"Over the course of the years, a lot of the asbestos has been
removed," he said. "We don't have a lot of trouble with it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Later in Life Has Low Mesothelioma Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that a recently published French
study makes the case that people who are exposed to asbestos later
in life have a lower risk of developing mesothelioma than those
who are exposed at a younger age.

This report, published in the European Respiratory Journal, may
explain why some people develop mesothelioma and similar asbestos-
related diseases while others do not.

Mesothelioma, a rare cancer that usually develops in the lining of
the lungs, is primarily caused by asbestos exposure. This
aggressive and unique disease affects between 2,000 and 3,000
people in the United States annually.

The study analyzed control cases of 2,466 males over a 20-year
period, from 1987 and 2006. Results showed that the risk of
developing pleural mesothelioma was lower for individuals who were
first exposed to asbestos after the age of 20, with consideration
to adjustment for intensity and the duration of occupational
asbestos exposure.

This risk level increased until about 30 years after an
individual's asbestos exposure ended.

The analysis also found that the effect of the duration of
asbestos exposure decreased when the age of first exposure
increased. So the later the age someone is first exposed to
asbestos, the less of an effect the exposure may have.

Researchers gathered this data from separate reports conducted by
the French network of cancer registries and the French National
Mesothelioma Surveillance Program.

The French study may prove beneficial to mesothelioma patients
worldwide and not just those who interacted with asbestos in
France.

Asbestos Use in France

The extent of regulations and restrictions on asbestos use and
manufacturing vary greatly in Europe. France takes a more
proactive stance on exposure than many other developed nations.

In 1996, France first introduced a ban on chrysotile asbestos, one
that was issued with some exceptions. Ten years later, the country
called on the International Labor Organization to ban asbestos in
all countries around the world.

Asbestos is still being mined, manufactured and consumed in many
parts of the world, despite its known health hazards. However,
some recent events show signs that things may be changing.

The amount of asbestos that was imported into France reached its
peak in 1974. Consumption and use continued for subsequent
decades.

Some French lawmakers believe that the country's delay in banning
asbestos may end contributing to thousands of additional deaths in
the future, as asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma can
take up to 50 years to become cancerous.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Province Shutters Two Mines
---------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports as of the last week of November,
two asbestos mines in Canada's Quebec Province were shut down,
marking the first time in 130 years that no asbestos mines are in
operation in that country.  Opponents of asbestos mining and
exportation worldwide are now keeping their eye on Canada to see
what comes next.

Early in November, work was halted at the Lac d'amiante du Canada
operation in the town of Thetford Mines. Just prior to that, work
also stopped at the large Jeffrey Mine, which is located about 90
kilometers away in the appropriately-named town of Asbestos. Lac
d'amiante reports that it is experiencing "operational obstacles"
while the Jeffrey Mine is waiting for a bank loan guarantee from
the government, which will allow it to begin digging a new
underground mine.

Opponents of asbestos mining around the world have attempted
numerous times to convince Canada to cease the mining of asbestos,
which is then exported to Third World countries where the material
is still widely used in the building of houses and other
structures.

For years, the World Health Organization (WHO) has rallied to
include asbestos on the UN treaty known as the Rotterdam
Convention, which would force Canada to warn countries purchasing
their asbestos as to the health concerns of the mineral, which can
cause the cancer known as mesothelioma. Canada has continually
fought this move and has thus far succeeded.

However, whereas Canada once led the world in asbestos production,
the country now produces only about five percent of the world's
supply of the mineral, just a mere 100,000 metric tons. With the
mines closed, most buyers will turn to Russia for their supply of
the mineral.

While those rallying for an asbestos ban view the current closures
as a victory, Canadian mine owners insist that the industry will
rise again. Jeffrey Mine president Bernard Coulombe believes the
future is bright for his mining business, which has been in
operation since the late 1800s. He's positive that he'll receive
government backing and already has 25 workers preparing a new
subterranean section, he says, which he hopes will be in operation
by the summer.

Furthermore, Coulombe disagrees with international critics who
want a worldwide ban on asbestos. He insists that the chrysotile
asbestos mined at Jeffrey is safe and is no longer handled in a
careless manner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Asbestos Mines Shutdown Satiates Majority
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak at the Mesothelioma Center reports that operation of
the final two working asbestos mines in Canada came to a halt last
month, stopped by financial problems and a growing opposition to
any future government bailout.

The stoppage was greeted with considerable satisfaction by the
majority of Canadians who have objected to the continued mining
and export of the toxic mineral.  It was the first time in more
than 100 years that no asbestos mines in Canada were operational.

It wasn't the only good news at The Mesothelioma Center last week.

According to published reports, a new, all-natural dietary
supplement was showing considerable promise in reversing or
stopping the liver damage that so many cancer patients incur as a
side effect to certain chemotherapy agents.

Research is showing that spirulina, a protein and antioxidant-rich
algae, has been effective in negating some of the damaging effects
of aggressive, high-dose chemotherapy.  Mesothelioma is one of the
cancers that researchers are hoping it will help.

When given a combination of spirulina and vitamin C, laboratory
mice experienced restored liver function that had been damaged by
Cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug given to mesothelioma
patients.

Another study, published by the European Respiratory Journal,
reinforced the belief that the later in life a person is first
exposed to asbestos, the less chance he has of getting
mesothelioma.  The findings are expected to help physicians make
an earlier diagnosis of mesothelioma, providing better treatment
options.

Mesothelioma often is not diagnosed until it is too far advanced
to treat effectively.

Mesothelioma is almost always caused by an exposure to asbestos,
which made the news from Canada so important.

Although Canada has tough restrictions on the use of asbestos, it
has continued to mine and export the mineral, fighting
international efforts for a world-wide ban.

The Canadian government has supported the asbestos industry
historically through legislation and economic incentives, despite
the public opposition. Even now, owners of the Jeffrey Mine in
Quebec are working to raise $25 from investors to qualify for
another $25 million in loan guarantees from the government.

Owners believe the closing now is only temporary, while opponents
of asbestos mining are hoping it is permanent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fond Du Lac Bldg Renovation Cited for Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that a company that has been
renovating a Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin building that was once an old
nursing home has been cited for a series of asbestos violations,
according to an article in the Post Crescent.

According to the article, the building in question, which is
scheduled to become a hotel and conference center, apparently
contained large amounts of asbestos floor tiles as well as other
asbestos materials. A Department of Natural Resources
investigation noted that over a period of about 6 months, the
contractor, Vanguard Contracting, demolished interior walls and
disturbed other asbestos-containing materials without properly
wetting them down first, which lessens the release of dangerous
fibers.

Any materials containing asbestos must be removed according to
state and federal regulations so that no one is unnecessarily
exposed to toxic asbestos. In this particular case, rules were not
followed. Hence, Vanguard Contracting and its owner, Brian Fuchs,
along with Rolling Meadows Development LLC, have been ordered to
pay $50,000 in fines for disregarding proper asbestos removal
procedures.

Furthermore, Vanguard Contracting is being fined for using
unlicensed workers to remove the aforementioned asbestos
materials. In the U.S., anyone who will be handling asbestos  must
be properly trained in removal procedures and must possess a
license from an accredited school, awarded after completing
classroom and on-site training.

Tim Burns, managing director of Rolling Meadows Development called
the violations "disheartening", noting that the project is
currently on hold and that the asbestos issues will need to be
resolved before any more work is completed on the project.

In the meantime, workers who were exposed to asbestos may be
concerned about their health. Asbestos is a known carcinogen and
the inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause tumors to form in the
lining of the lungs or abdomen, resulting in a diagnosis of
mesothelioma, a serious cancer for which the only known cause is
exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Czech Primary Schools Closed Over Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Falvey, writing for Cesky Rozhlas reports that the city
hall in Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic, closed three primary
schools in a housing estate last week after health workers
discovered the presence of carcinogenic asbestos. While teachers
attempt to create alternative plans for the several hundred
students, asbestos concerns have returned to the public awareness
nationwide, and health officials warn that many more public
buildings may carry the same risks.

Where there are cheaply produced prefabricated buildings from the
1970s and 80s there are worries of asbestos -- which stick in the
lungs like hooks and can bring cancer or other ailments even many
years after the fact. Now many of these buildings are being
reconstructed, which causes the fibres to be released anew. An
inspection of schools in the South Bohemian centre of Ceske
Budejovice last week resulted in the closure of three primary
schools serving hundreds of students. The teachers are continuing
work under provisional conditions but only for a few days, after
which time an "asbestos holiday" will take effect and the city
council is working on crisis scenarios.

Most worryingly, the three schools closed were the three schools
tested -- chosen for inspection because they were reinsulated in
the summer. The students there may thus have been breathing
asbestos for three months already (though the problem was in fact
confined to certain rooms). How many more institutions could be
posing health risks is impossible to estimate. Since September and
the end of the renovation season, four schools in Prague also had
to move students elsewhere due to asbestos concerns, as did one
nursery in Ceska Lipa, north of Prague. The country's chief
medical officer, Michal Vit, is ordering inspections in all
schools built during the 1970s and 80s that have recently
undergone renovations.

And the problem by no means extends only to schools. There are
thousands of hospitals, administrative offices and residences
around the country that were built during the same era using the
same materials. Health care officials note that such buildings
pose no hazard so long as the panels are left undisturbed. But the
Czech Republic's reliance on these millions of spaces is such that
they must be refurbished rather than rebuilt, and that
refurbishment means disturbing the asbestos insulation panels that
were standard issue at the time.

Prefabricated buildings can be reconstructed safely, but at no
small cost. The asbestos panels must be removed according to very
strict procedure. And because their removal is so demanding in
terms of time, money and worker safety, companies often skirt the
rules, and the buildings users are not the only victims of poor
practices. Workers should be dressed in overalls and breathing
masks; a protective zone is to be set out around the construction
site. Nonetheless, the daily Mlada fonta Dnes cites residents who
have observed much different procedures -- foreign workers dressed
only to the waist using hydraulic drills while nearby schools
windows were open.

Asbestos is unseen, and therefore inestimably disregarded. Anyone
with a trade licence for removing hazardous substances can be
hired to remove the asbestos panels -- once appreciated around
Europe and the world for their unique properties of insulation and
fireproofing. The common effects of contact however include lung
disease and shortness of breath in the better case scenario, and
tumours and other little-researched problems of the respiratory
system. Puzzlingly, people who have not been exposed directly to
asbestos have come down with symptoms of asbestos-related diseases
through contact with first-person exposures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silverdell Pre-Tax Profit Up GBP2.5MM
------------------------------------------------------
theconstructionindex.co.uk reports that asbestos removal
specialist Silverdell has boosted its forward orderbook 73% to
GBP107 million, the firm announced in its results for the year
ended September 30, 2011.

Profit before tax was up a third to GBP2.5 million (2010: GBP1.8
million), but turnover was flat at GBP59.7 million (2010: GBP56.7
million).

Silverdell operates in two markets: domestic refurbishment and
construction; and industrial support services, notably
petrochemical and nuclear. It is the largest quoted supplier of
asbestos support services.

During the year, it completed two acquisitions for its consulting
arm: A H Allen, based in the North East; and RDS Asbestos
Management Consultants. Its consulting team has almost doubled in
staff numbers to 180, compared to 100 a year ago.

The bulk of its turnover still comes from the remediation side of
the business (GBP51.5 million), compared to GBP8.2 million for
consulting.

Growth prospects for Silverdell include:

     -- Winning a contract to survey and remediate 30,000 homes
over three years working for a consortium of Registered Social
Landlords.

     -- Being the incumbent asbestos services provider for a
number of Russell Group universities which have diverse property
portfolios across a wide regional spread.

     -- Increasing work with the Atomic Weapons Establishment
threefold in less than two years.

     -- Winning a share of the GBP304 million framework contract
with Magnox for asbestos removal, deplanting and decommissioning
at their first generation nuclear power stations.

     -- A national framework with Crawfords, a leading loss
adjuster, to provide insurance-related remediation works and this
relationship is responsible for the majority of the increase in
this work.

Sean Nutley, chief executive, said: "Increasingly, our key
customers are seeking to appoint partners that are capable of
offering a single source solution to their service needs. In a
highly regulated market, they are seeking to achieve long-term
certainty and peace of mind by appointing reliable, proven supply
chain partners, on a framework contract basis. We operate in
markets where there are very high barriers to entry and which
therefore favour long-established companies.

"We are now actively building on this position to create new
opportunities for growth in these sectors, both in the UK and
abroad. We believe that the successful implementation of this
strategy will help fulfil our ambition to increase the critical
mass of the business and secure annual turnover in excess of
GBP100m."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Construction Firms Cited for Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Business and Legal Resources reports that OSHA has cited Windy
City contractors, T2 G.C., LLC (operating as T2 Construction) and
Gramek Construction, Inc., for failing to protect workers from
asbestos hazards at a jobsite in May.  T2 was the general
contractor at the site and Gramek conducted demolition work,
including the removal of floor tile and pipe insulation allegedly
containing asbestos.

"Failing to conduct an asbestos assessment and require workers to
wear personal protective equipment when working with material
potentially contaminated by asbestos shows a blatant disregard for
their health and safety," said OSHA Regional Administrator Michael
Connors.

The employers were cited for numerous violations. Among them was
failing to have a competent person conduct an initial assessment
before starting asbestos work, and failing to conduct required air
and exposure monitoring. The employers face combined fines of
$280,200.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arkansas Medical Center Subject to Hazard Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas City Traveler reports that Arkansas City has received
word that an asbestos hazard study will be performed at the former
South Central Kansas Medical Center at 216 W. Birch Ave., a city
official said Nov. 29.

The city applied on Nov. 3. to the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment for the "brownfields" study.

The application was approved less than a week later, said Matt
Rowland, the city's director of building, planning and code
enforcement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testimony Sought in Suit v. Texaco, Chevron
------------------------------------------------------------
According to David Yates at Southeast Texas Record, seeking the
testimony of Jesse Philmon, Rosemary Philmon has filed a petition
to perpetuate testimony.

The petition, filed Nov. 22 in Jefferson County District Court,
states that Philmon suffers from lung cancer -- a condition
brought on by his asbestos exposure during his employment with
Texaco.

The anticipated defendants in the pending suit are Texaco and
Chevron USA.

According to the petition, Philmon was diagnosed with lung cancer.
The petition does not state when he was diagnosed but does allege
the disease "is expected to progress" and ultimately prove fatal.

"The substance of the testimony which petitioner expects to elicit
involves Philmon's employment and exposure history at Texaco," the
suit state, adding that the petitioner alleges his condition was a
result of asbestos exposure.

Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde represents the petitioners.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. E191-386


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Permit Sought for Montana Bldg.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Claudette Riley at The Springfield News-Leader reports that
developer Paul Larino said he has requested a demolition permit
Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 30, for the former Hickory Hills school
building.

The 11th hour move was designed to satisfy a contract extension
approved in October by the Springfield school district. It
required Larino to complete asbestos abatement and start
demolition by Nov. 30.

"We have filed for the interior wrecking permit and are
coordinating with the City of Springfield for the proper disposal
of the asbestos-related items," he wrote in a Wednesday letter to
the district.

"Once we have these items cleared from the building, we will be
putting bids out for the full demolition of the shell of the
building."

A year ago, Larino agreed to pay the Springfield school district
$4.5 million for the 15.5-acre property along Chestnut Expressway,
east of U.S. 65, to make way for the proposed Hickory Hills
Marketplace.

He twice failed to make major payment deadlines and now has until
April to come up with $2.5 million.

Larino said the project was hampered by its complexity -- which
includes working with multiple entities and adjacent property
owners -- and a prolonged economic downturn.

But, he said the project is finally starting to come together.

"We are moving along quite nicely," he said.

Larino has pursued two separate taxing districts, one from Greene
County and one from the City of Springfield. In mid-November, the
county gave their nod to a bonding process for $6.4 million in
funding to be finalized in February.

He said he has submitted plans for stormwater, sewer, retaining
wall and grading work to the property. He's still securing
easements, working on plans to relocate Eastgate Avenue, and
preparing property bid documents.

"Everybody wants to see the dirt turned out there but there's a
lot of work that goes into it," he said.

A spokesman for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources said
Larino has not yet notified DNR of plans to do the abatement -- a
step taken 10 days prior to demolition.

Larino said he is participating in DNR's "voluntary cleanup
program" and will officially notify the department of abatement
plans, if required.

District officials said Larino has made monthly, nonrefundable
cash payments of $12,500 -- a requirement of the contract
amendment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Mexico May Sue Advantage Asphalt for Waste
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phaedra Haywood, writing for Santa Fe New Mexican reports that New
Mexico's Environment Department may take Advantage Asphalt to
court to get the Santa Fe-based paving firm to pay $817,000 in
fines related to the mishandling of asbestos waste.

The company was cited in 2010 for violating rules regarding the
handling of the hazardous material while working on a street-
improvement product for the city of Bloomfield in 2009.

According to that citation, the firm improperly disposed of
asbestos at a landfill, and then in a Dumpster, even after being
notified that the waste required special handling.

The firm originally appealed the Environment Department's
compliance order and said the city of Bloomfield didn't reveal the
existence of the asbestos before the job began. A hearing was set
in the case but was canceled after Advantage Asphalt indicated a
desire to reach a settlement, according to Environment Department
spokesman Jim Winchester.

Winchester said in a written statement Monday, Nov. 28, that the
settlement discussion was "unfruitful," and a formal discovery
process was initiated in the case.

The hearing process could have dragged on for years. But it was
cut short when Advantage Asphalt failed to meet deadlines to
provide information to the department, "despite repeated requests
for information and contact by NMED's attorney," Winchester said
in the statement.

Advantage Asphalt eventually "ceased all contact with the
Department," Winchester said, and the Environment Department moved
for a default judgment against the paving firm in August.

When the firm failed to respond to that motion, Environment
Secretary F. David Martin signed a final order dismissing the
appeal and upholding the original compliance order and its
penalties.

The department issued a demand letter to Advantage Asphalt on Oct.
11, requesting that the paving firm pay the penalty of $817,000
within 30 days.

"If the civil penalty is not remitted within thirty (30) days of
receipt of this letter," the letter stated, "the New Mexico
Environment Department will seek judicial relief in state District
Court."

Winchester stated that Advantage Asphalt signed for the letter
Oct. 21, but as of Tuesday, the department still had not received
a response and was "moving forward with our legal options."

Advantage Asphalt's attorney, Santa Fe City Councilor Matthew
Ortiz, disputed Winchester's version of events. He said Nov. 29
that he provided information requested as part of discovery in
June but never heard back from the department until Oct. 22, when
his client forwarded him a copy of the demand letter, which had
been sent to his client's old address.

"I thought the case was still pending," said Ortiz, who provided a
copy of a letter he said he sent to the Environment Department on
Oct. 24, asking the department's assistant general counsel, Eric
Ames, about the status of the case.

"Right now, my client has directed me to wait for them to
respond," Ortiz said. "My client wants to have a determination of
the case based on its merits."

Advantage Asphalt -- owned by Anthony Montoya -- was the focus of
a yearlong Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department investigation into
allegations of fraud and theft in the county's Public Works
Department. The results of that investigation have been under
review by District Attorney Angela "Spence" Pacheco's office for
about a year, but no charges have been filed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harvey, Ill. Mall Demolition Seen by Year's End
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Nolan, writing for South Town Star reports that demolition of
the decaying remnants of Dixie Square Mall in Harvey, Illinois,
could begin by year's end.

The South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association is poised to
approve a contract with a Chicago-based demolition company to raze
what remains of the mall, which closed its doors in 1979.

Last September, Gov. Pat Quinn said $4 million in federal funds
had been earmarked for the project.

Work on clearing the property, at 151st Street and Dixie Highway,
had been halted after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued
Harvey in 2005 over asbestos removal at the site.

The former mall has been the centerpiece of several redevelopment
plans through the years -- including one involving converting it
into a mausoleum -- although none has been realized. City
officials hope that clearing the remaining buildings on the
property will make the site more attractive to developers.

The mayors association solicited bids for the demolition, and the
apparent low bidder is McDonagh Demolition, which is offering to
do the job for $2.29 million, according to Ed Paesel, the
association's executive director. The executive committee is
expected to act on awarding the contract early next month, and
McDonagh could start demolition by the end of December, Paesel
said.

Illinois received $169 million in federal disaster cleanup funds
after the remnants of Hurricane Ike spawned flooding around the
state in 2008. Along with the Dixie Square demolition, some of
that money has been parceled out to Southland communities for
storm sewer projects and purchasing and rehabbing foreclosed
homes.

Paesel said while the goal of awarding the demolition contract is
to "cure a public health and safety hazard" due to asbestos on the
property, there also will be an economic development benefit.

"Ultimately, this (demolition) will enable the site to be
redeveloped," he said.

Dixie Square opened in 1966 on the site of a former golf course.
Original tenants included J.C. Penney, Montgomery Ward, Jewel and
Walgreens.

The last time anybody put any real money into the mall was for the
1979 movie "The Blues Brothers," with the mall getting a temporary
face-lift in preparation for a trashing by Jake and Elwood Blues.

Over the years the mall was touted as a possible site of a
ballpark for the White Sox, and former Harvey Mayor David Johnson
acted as a consultant for a proposal to convert the mall into a
transportation hub and government offices. In 2005, would-be
developer and Mount Greenwood native John Deneen announced an
ambitious $400 million plan to bring retailers such as Costco,
Kohl's and Old Navy.

More recently, a group called MG Development South reportedly has
been lining up investors to bring a mixed-use project to the mall
site that would include retail and possibly housing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog's Feature on Hazards Gains EPPY Awards
----------------------------------------------------------------
iwatchnews.org's Randy Barrett reports that The Center for Public
Integrity Nov. 30 was honored with two 2011 EPPY awards from
Editor & Publisher.  The winning categories: Best Enterprise
Feature on a Website and Best Investigative Website with Under
250,000 Monthly Visitors.

The feature singled out for accolades is Dangers in the Dust:
Inside the Global Asbestos Trade, produced by the Center's
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The
multimedia series published in July 2010 and included a BBC World
TV documentary, a dozen radio stories on BBC World Service and
seven online stories by ICIJ.  The project reached tens of
millions of people in more than 150 countries, receiving coverage
by some 400 news outlets, blogs and websites in at least 20
languages.

Public health activists have used the project's key findings on
the multinational asbestos lobby to argue for asbestos bans in
countries such as Brazil, India, and Mexico. The project has had
particular impact in top producer Canada, which exports the fiber
to India, where worker and public protections are weak. An
Internet campaign resulted in more than 7,000 letters being sent
to Canadian officials, calling for an export ban. The Canadian
Press wire service referred to the investigation as a "public-
relations tsunami" for the asbestos industry. Canadians have also
used the series to pressure the government of Quebec to drop a
loan guarantee to reopen the province's only remaining asbestos
mine.

The Center's iWatch News site is attracting a growing number of
readers who recognize the vital role of watchdog journalism in a
healthy democracy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Erionite Poses Mesothelioma Threat
---------------------------------------------------
aboutMesothelioma.net reports Erionite, a naturally occuring
silicate mineral, is emerging as a serious health hazard in the
United States comparable to asbestos. Much like asbestos, erionite
fibers pose a hazard if they are disturbed and become airborne.
And erionite has been linked to mesothelioma, a signature cancer
of asbestos exposure.

According to a new advisory by the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, researchers have accumulated
evidence linking exposure to erionite with serious respiratory
health effects. Workers in some occupations have greater potential
occupational exposure to erionite.

Erionite is found in rock formations in many western states.
Disturbing the fibrous mineral can generate airborne fibers that
cause harmful respiratory effects similar to asbestos.

It's well documented that residents of several Turkish villages
where erionite was used to construct houses have a remarkably high
rate of developing malignant mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of
the lining of the lungs and abdomen. But the risk in the U.S.
hasn't been well documented.

A 2011 study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine examined exposure of workers involved in road maintenance
in southwestern North Dakota, where erionite is present in gravel
pits. The researchers examined 34 workers using CT scans of the
chest and observed changes in the lining of the chest cavity
similar to pleural changes cause by asbestos. The study concluded
that exposure to erionite represented a potential occupational
hazard in the Western U.S.

The National Toxicology Program, a government research agency, has
designated erionite as a known human carcinogen. Researchers at
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health said
there is a need to adopt regulations to protect workers from
inhaling dust suspected of containing erionite. Existing
regulations concerning exposure to naturally occurring asbestos
may be relevant to reducing exposures to erionite.

Recommendations for reducing risk of exposure to erionite include:

     -- Limiting the number of workers involved with erinoite;

     -- Using wet methods to reduce airborne dust generation at
        roads and quarries that contained erionite;

     -- Protecting workers with personal protective equipment,
        including respiratory protection;

     -- Establishing decontamination protocols including showering
        and change of clothes before leaving the worksite;

     -- Ensuring that work clothing is not washed at home to
        prevent erionite fibers from being brought home on work
        clothes or boots.

Asbestos was widely used in many building materials, automotive
parts and shipping applications before its use was strictly
limited in the late 1970s in the U.S. Approximately 2,500 to 3,000
workers a year die of malignant mesothelioma as a result of
asbestos exposure. Erionite is not as prevalent in commercially
available products. Still, it may pose a serious hazard for
workers in certain occupations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Alaskan Hospital Continues to Deteriorate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ketchikan Daily News reports that the old hospital on Bawden
Street, in Ketchikan, Alaska, continues to deteriorate, with some
upper boards and cornice material separating, but not yet falling.

City of Ketchikan Public Works Director Clif Allen said the city
was working with Juneau-based consultant Carson Dorn to come up
with a plan for demolishing the privately owned structure.

After a notice to vacate and demolish went unheeded several years
ago, the city stepped in, citing public safety, to board up
windows and restrict access to the old building. The former
hospital, more recently called Bawden Street Apartments, has been
deteriorating for many years, but that process accelerated
recently, leading to a sagging roof and a bulging exterior wall.
City officials have said the building is likely to collapse this
winter.

"You know it's going to happen," he said, but it's difficult to
predict when.

Allen said the city was prepared to close the street if crews
predicted imminent collapse. In the meantime, he said, one of the
ideas under consideration was to place a netting on the outside of
the building similar to what is installed on rock walls, to
contain any material that falls.

Allen said he would like to avoid sending crews inside the
building, which he said is dangerous and full of mold. He said he
didn't know when Carson Dorn would complete a demolition plan. The
company was talking to Environmental Protection Agency officials
about the building's asbestos, he said.

Normally, federal EPA regulations would require asbestos abatement
before demolition. However, Allen noted in an earlier memo, EPA
regulations allow structurally unsound buildings to be demolished
without the usual abatement. In that situation, though, it's
possible that all of the building material following demolition
would be declared hazardous and would have to be disposed of in a
more expensive manner than otherwise would be required.

The city has included $1 million for the demolition project in the
draft 2012 budget.

The city issued a notice to vacate and demolish the Bawden Street
Apartments building in 2008 to then-owner Joseph Burns. After
losing an appeal challenging the order, Burns donated the building
to the Seattle-based nonprofit group Rehabilitation Research
Institute.

RRI CEO Kenneth Carpenter, who has not returned telephone calls
seeking comment, said earlier that his organization wanted to
renovate the building into a place for artists. When the city
offered to buy the condemned property for $1, Carpenter responded
with a counteroffer to sell it for $10 million.

In hopes of recouping some of its costs after demolishing the old
hospital, the city has two options, according to City Attorney
Mitch Seaver. The first is an assessment lien, which would be
placed on the building's next property tax bill, leading to
foreclosure if it remained unpaid. In that case, the property
would end up in the city's hands in about a year, after the city
paid any outstanding Ketchikan Gateway Borough property taxes.
Once it belonged to the city, Seaver wrote in a memo, the property
could be sold or kept for public use.

The second option Seaver suggested would be to sue the owner for
liability, which would make RRI responsible for the city's costs.
A judgment could be written against the nonprofit's assets,
including the Bawden Street property, which then could be sold
with the proceeds applied to the judgment. That process also would
take about a year, Seaver wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rodeway Inn Demolition Delayed Over Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Like an unwanted guest, one old hotel just doesn't want to check
out, "but 2 News found the problem is you end up with the bill,"
Jordan Burgess, writing for WDTN.com in Ohio, reports.

Workers started tearing down the Rodeway Inn on Little York Road
months ago, but the E-P-A did some testing on the debris and found
asbestos.

Now the bulldozers are doing a lot more dozing as they wait for
the asbestos to be cleared.

"2 News looked into it for you. We're told by Butler Township
officials the area in question had supposedly been given the all
clear by a company hired by the owners, so the township isn't sure
why that asbestos was overlooked," Burgess reports.

But removing it will likely take the project from $50,000 under
budget to $20,000 over budget.

"It's frustrating for us," says Butler Township Trustee Mike Lang.
"It's one step ahead to tear the building down, two steps
backward. Our goal is to get this site cleared to be the nucleus
of Miller Lane and have some development."

Officials tell 2 News the asbestos will likely push demolition of
the building into the first part of next year, but they're asking
for patience.

They say once the site becomes a mixed use or commercial
development, taxpayers will see a return on this extra investment
and a guest that's overstayed its welcome will finally be gone.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cochrane Offers PR Services to Envi. & IAQ Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The indoor air quality and environmental industries only marketing
and public relations firm specializing in the industry announced
they have openings for new clients based in California.  Cochrane
& Associates has been helping firms involved with IAQ, mold, lead,
asbestos, remediation, HVAC, healthcare-associated infection
control and other environmental fields grow their businesses for
the past six years.

The company specializes in helping firms that deal with indoor
environmental issues build their brand.  The marketing company has
worked with many of the biggest names in the industry and helped
out numerous associations and trade groups with their marketing
and public relations.

"When we bring on a client in a specific segment of the industry
we are very careful to not work with other companies that overlap
in their geographical region," reported Paul Cochrane, President
of Cochrane and Associates, LLC.  "Recently the state of
California has become available and our services are now open to
firms that provide inspection, consulting or remediation services
in that area.  We don't just work with large corporations, many
smaller firms often don't realize the affordability of outsourcing
their marketing and think services provided by firms such as ours
are only available to larger consulting and remediation companies.
Although we do deal with companies with hundreds of employees, at
this time we currently also work with several firms across the
nation that only have one or two full time employees," he
continued.

In addition to the marketing and public relations services
provided by Cochrane & Associates, clients also have full access
to the IAQ Video Network.  The IAQ Video Network was founded two
years ago to produce short online videos that include everything
from corporate videos to public outreach videos meant to educate
and inform the public about microbial and environmental hazards.
At this time over 600 people each day view the videos produced by
the IAQ Video Network.

"With 2012 just a month away, it's the perfect time for any
companies based in California to begin their new marketing plans
and we can help," stated Mr. Cochrane.  Professionals in the IAQ,
lead, asbestos, mold, industrial hygiene, HVAC, remediation and
associated markets can request more information by visiting
info@cochraneassoc.com or calling (602) 510-3179.  To learn more
about Cochrane & Associates please visit
http://www.cochraneassoc.com/or http://www.iaqtv.com/for
information about the IAQ Video Network.

                    About Cochrane & Associates
                      & the IAQ Video Network

Cochrane & Associates is a business development, public relations
and marketing consulting firm that specializes in the
environmental, HVAC, mold and indoor air quality industries.  The
company has worked with many of the industries' leading
institutions and companies and continues to be an innovator in the
industry.  They are also the innovators behind the IAQ Video
Network.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Fitness Centre's Pool to Be Closed Next Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
lynnnews.co.uk reports that a swimming pool will be closed for
about a month next year while asbestos is removed.

West Norfolk Council has discovered asbestos in the ventilation
ducts and on some wall panels at the St James' Swimming and
Fitness Centre.

The council has carried out tests in the building and says there
are no traces in the air.

The cabinet will be asked to approve a budget next month to remove
the asbestos and replace the duct work and panels.

The pool is likely to be closed for three to four weeks in
February while the work is undertaken.

This is estimated to cost in the region of GBP100,000. The
asbestos was discovered in the summer.

Cabinet members for leisure and operational development David Pope
said: "We need to carry out some additional maintenance work at
the pool, which budget approval is sought."

Asbestos had been removed from other parts of the building,
including the changing rooms in the late 1990s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Dam to Be Shuttered for Good
-----------------------------------------------------
ktvq.com reports that the Rainbow Dam powerhouse in Great Falls,
Montana, is about to be retired, but many people hope it is only
the start of something new for the historic site.

That was the consensus at a public meeting held in Black Eagle on
Tuesday night, Nov. 29.

The six-month public comment period opened last week.

PPL Montana, which owns the structure, tossed around the idea of
tearing the building down, selling or donating it or a combination
of both.

PPL spokespeople also pointed out challenges for the structure and
the land surrounding it, including high voltage equipment,
foundation and structural integrity, possible asbestos and the
building's location on a flood plain.

Community members shared several different ideas for the building,
with most agreeing that it should stay standing and be re-
developed for a new purpose.

PPL said others have suggested turning the structure into a micro-
brewery, while another group requested a generator to use for
training purposes.

PPL will accept ideas for the building until May 31, 2012.

People interested in submitting proposals, or requesting more
information about the site and the building for a proposal, should
e-mail Carrie Harris at rainbowretirement@pplweb.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrecking Firm to Demolish Ohio Courthouse
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Dutro, Staff Writer of The Advertiser-Tribune, reports that a
Cleveland-based wrecking firm is preparing to demolish the 1884
courthouse, and expects to be finished within the 60-day time
table.

County Administrator Stacy Wilson said she met with
representatives of B&B Wrecking of Cleveland, whose $373,000 bid
to raze the building was accepted Nov. 17 by commissioners Ben
Nutter and Jeff Wagner.  The two commissioners have signed the
contract with B&B, which was approved by engineering firm MKC
Associates and Seneca County Prosecutor Derek DeVine.

Wilson said B&B employees spent time on Nov. 30 going through the
building and collecting information for asbestos remediation. She
said the asbestos study should take about 10 days to complete.

The company also is investigating permits and permissions needed
before work can begin.

Since the commissioners signed the contract, B&B has 60 days to
complete the project.

Wilson said representatives of the firm stated their bid was only
for demolition of the building.

The company is to remove the cornerstone and the time capsule, as
per the contract. During a meeting Nov. 29, Wagner and Board
President Dave Sauber said they hope the items can be put on
display at the Seneca County Museum.

Scrap from the project is to be disposed of at an approved site,
and the company has been considering using Sunny Farms Landfill in
Fostoria, as well as sites in Crawford and other surrounding
counties. Materials containing asbestos are to be disposed of at
an approved site in Toledo.

B&B is to recycle materials when possible.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairport Harbor West Lighthouse to be Refurbished
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey L. Frischkorn, writing for The News-Herald, in Ohio,
reports that Sheila Consaul has officially taken possession of the
Fairport Harbor West Lighthouse and now the real work begins in
turning the iconic structure into a summer home.

And that job will require repairing recent vandalism damage done
to the building -- located along the breakwater that juts into
Lake Erie from the Headlands Beach State Park and Nature Preserve.

"I was out to see the lighthouse both in September and October and
I'm very excited to get on with the restoration," said Consaul, a
marketing executive from Reston, Va.

"But some vandals came and broke eight windows in the upper
portion from the inside and which were covered by Plexiglas," she
said. "That's unfortunate because in this case I have to fix it
unlike a home where the seller is required to make repairs."

Consaul was the second-highest bidder in August with an offer of
$71,010, but the first-place bidder withdrew, forfeiting his
deposit.

Immediate plans call for covering the windows with plywood
sometime this month, Consaul said.

Long-term plans point toward restoring the structure, beginning
this spring, to be used as a summer home, complete with three
bedrooms, Consaul said.

The unit does have an electrical system with a dedicated meter
that is positioned at Headlands Beach State Park.

"The biggest challenge will be providing running water, which is a
bit ironic considering that it's on Lake Erie," Consaul said.

"What I hope to do is have built a self-contained and
environmentally friendly water and waste water system."

Such details will require not only consulting with appropriate
contractors but also engineers and those experts familiar with
unique living systems as well as handling lead-based paint and
asbestos, Consaul said.

"I've got a lot of homework to do," she said.

As for accessing the lighthouse both during its refurbishment and
use as a summer home, Consaul said she hopes to at least initially
buy "a little boat."

"What I hope would eventually happen is that someone would start a
water taxi business so that, on call, a boat can deliver supplies
and guests, oh, and pizza, too," she said.

Consaul will maintain both a Web site,
http://www.fairportharborwestlighthouse.com/and a Facebook page
that will follow the lighthouse and its refurbishment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dusti Thompson Joins CARD
------------------------------------------
The Western News in Libby, Mont., reports that Dusti Thompson, who
has been affiliated with the Libby Chamber of Commerce for 10
years, has resigned as executive director.

Thompson started her new position as a community outreach
specialist with the Center for Asbestos-Related Diseases on
Nov. 28.

"Yes, it's true," Thompson said last Nov. 30.  "This has been in
the works for months, since March. I just wanted to get through
the Rodeo and some other things. I've been dragging my feet on
this, but now it's done."

Thompson said while she may be leaving the Chamber of Commerce
office, she is not leaving all her duties behind.

"I still plan to be on the (Kootenai River) Rodeo committee,"
Thompson said. "That will still go on. I'm not giving up on that."
And while she admits leaving the Chamber behind, she does say
she's looking forward to a new challenge.

"I'm super excited about it, and I can't wait to get started
(last) Monday," Thompson said. "My family is so excited for me.
I'm happy to be getting my life back."

Libby Area Chamber of Commerce Administrative Assistant Norma J.
Hanson has agreed to fill the position as the board begins its
search for a new executive director.

"Norma has agreed to stay on through the 1st of February, until
after our fundraising dinner," Chamber President Roxanne Escudero
said.

"The board has met, and we will meet again," Escudero said. "We
will list the position with Job Service, but for now we're taking
applications at the Chamber office and here (at Good News
Christian Book Store)."

Escudero said the Chamber prefers a local candidate but if needed
will expand that search.

"We're all about hiring locally," she said. "If at some point we
need to go outside our area, the board will discuss that."
The executive director's salary is negotiable, Escudero said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penfield Residents to Vote on School Expansion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Young, staff writer for Penfield (N.Y.) Post, reports that
residents in the Penfield school district will vote on a capital
project on Dec. 7 to decide whether to approve small-scale
expansions to two elementary schools and the school district
office.

The renovations, in part, will help accommodate the addition of
full-day kindergarten in the 2012-13 school year.

State law requires handicap-accessible bathrooms to be installed
in all kindergarten classrooms, so two new bathrooms will be added
to Indian Landing Elementary.

At Harris Hill Elementary, four existing offices will be converted
into one kindergarten classroom, and the art room will be
relocated to make room for a second kindergarten classroom.

The district approved implementing full-day kindergarten in June
after a committee was formed to research the pros and cons of such
a program. Marc Nelson, principal of Harris Hill, was involved
with the committee during the early planning stages, and says that
seeing their hard work come to fruition is both exciting and
gratifying.

"When you can close the gap between the theory and the practice
it's a step in the right direction," said Nelson. "It really is an
exciting time."

The vote will also ask residents to approve improvements to the
district office on Atlantic Avenue. These include the replacement
of windows, a door, flooring and asbestos removal, and the
addition of two handicap accessible bathrooms.

The estimated project cost of $592,160 will be taken from the
district's fund balance, with no impact on taxpayers in the
future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bayer-Miles Complex Demolition Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Ernstes at WSBT-TV reports that work is progressing Nov. 30
night on plans to demolish a well-known landmark in Elkhart, Ind.

Over the summer, the public was informed that the old Bayer-Miles
complex would be knocked down and the move could pave the way for
new high-tech businesses.

"We really think we will have a great property to offer when we
are done with the demolition," said John Tracy, from Feed the
Children.

Owners of the property, the Feed the Children organization, have
been busy planning to bring down the complex. This past summer
they moved their operation to a smaller building. For the last
couple of months, crews have been inside the former Bayer-Miles
complex removing asbestos and other materials.

"The asbestos is the main target of our abatement," said Tracy.
"That's the principle thing, the age and the construction
techniques that were used when the building was constructed, there
is quite a bit of that."

If all goes according to plan, the abatement work should be
completed in January and setting the stage for actual demolition
work.

"We could begin the demolition as early as the later part of
January and they are telling us that's a five to six month
process," said Tracy.

All the buildings could be knocked down sometime in June or July.

When it is all said and done, there will be 26 acres of green
space to build on. The city of Elkhart will be working very
closely with Feed the Children to market this location. The
ultimate goal is to attract high tech businesses to this location.

"It's primarily geared toward a high tech cluster of businesses in
comparison to the South Bend ignition park," said Barkley Garrett,
from the economic development department.

For the foreseeable future, Feed the Children will retain
ownership of the 26-acre site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56 Services Wins Pre-Demolition Survey Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
metrowny.com reports that at the Nov. 21 Cheektowaga (N.Y.) Town
Board Meeting, the contract for a pre-demolition asbestos survey,
specifications and air monitoring services for the demolition of
24E Glenwood Court was awarded to 56 Services, Inc. in the amount
of $1,400.  Technician time and air monitoring services during the
demolition were not factored into the cost and will increase the
bill by $2,925.  The town board approved a change order for
technician time and air monitoring services regarding the
demolition of 27 Alpine Place in the amount of $2,295.

The following were structures and premises were deemed unsafe and
unsecure: 121 Pleasant Parkway owned by Karyn Sajdak of 121
Pleasant Parkway; 257 Chapel Ave. owned by James Gauthier of 143
Claudette Court and Gail James of 257 Chapel Ave.; 1272 Walden
Ave. 166 Straley Ave., 70 Shanley St. 25 Dennis Lane, and 95
Wellworth Place owned by the Housing and Preservation Office. The
vacant structures and premises will be safeguarded and all
nuisances abated. All costs incurred will be assessed against the
property described.

The next Cheektowaga Town Board meeting will take place at 6:45
p.m. Monday, Dec. 5 at Cheektowaga Town Hall, inside council
chambers, 3301 Broadway.  For more information, visit
http://www.tocny.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Bids for Broad Street Parkade Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Moran, writing for Manchester Patch, reports that when the
town unsealed competitive bids for demolition of the dilapidated
Broad Street Parkade site third week of November it received a
pleasant surprise -- a number of the bids came in significantly
lower than expected.

Manchester purchased the parkade, a long abandoned shopping plaza
that sits on almost 20 acres of land on Broad Street, in March of
this year for $1.85 million and have been proceeding ahead with
remediation work at the site. The parcel is contaminated by
asbestos and PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, both classified
toxins, which has complicated the demolition efforts.

The town expected the total cost to remediate and demolish the
parcel to cost from $1.9 million to $2.3 million, and has already
spent money on the remediation efforts, but last week's bids
revealed that the cost to demolish the structure could be
significantly less than expected. The Board of Directors approved
$2.3 million of an $8 million bond referendum for the project in
June.

But the lowest bid for the work, by Costello Dismantling Company
out of Middleboro, was estimated at $566,150, while the town also
received two other bids below the $600,000 threshold; the highest
bid, from Enviroguard LLC. Out of Seymour, came in at $2.4
million. The town received 17 bids for the project, but has never
dealt with the Costello Dismantling Company before, according to
Public Works Director Mark Carlino. The town has dealt with the
third lowest bidder for the project, Environmental Services of
South Windsor, who submitted a bid for $591,820, on the demolition
of the former Wille's Steakhouse property on Center Street, but
Carlino noted that that work did not involve the removal of PCBs.

Carlino said the remediation work would likely cost about
$600,000, but that if the town did determine that the bidders
under $600,000 could complete the project, that could save the
town more than $1 million of the $2.3 million the Board of
Directors approved for the demolition and remediation work in
June.

Carlino said the potential savings could allow the town and the
Manchester Redevelopment Agency more leeway to advance other
aspects of the Broad Street Redevelopment plan.

"It would still be part of the project," Carlino said. "The money
just wouldn't need to be spent on the demolition."

The low bids seem to be the latest in a series of positive
developments for the Broad Street project. The town recently
approved an engineering firm to draft the schematic design work
for a planned expansion of Center Springs Park and connection out
to Broad Street, while work on the reconstruction of Broad Street
itself is also progressing with the aid of a $3 million bond from
the state.

Carlino said the town would check the references of the lowest
bidders to see if they have had any problems handling similar
contracts in the past, and that the bid could be awarded in the
next several weeks. He said that demolition of the parkade could
commence in the spring, provided the Environmental Protection
Agency approves the contractor's plan to remove the PCBs from the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Delay Sale of Magherafelt Army Base
-----------------------------------------------------------------
midulstermail.co.uk reports that the six-year delay in selling
Magherafelt Army base to the education board impacted on the local
community and resulted in significant costs to the public sector,
a major report has revealed.

NI Audit Office has called for all departments to 'clearly track
and account for' ringfenced money after a probe into the sale of
the base to the North Eastern Education and Library Board.

The report looks at the costs and raises concerns over the
handling of several military bases including Magherafelt.

It highlights delays and the expense of removing contaminants such
as fuel spills, lead, asbestos and other harmful chemicals from
the sites.

The Magherafelt base was sold to the NEELB for replacement Primary
and Nursery Schools which are currently under construction.

The base had been transferred to the Office of the First and
Deputy First Minister under a scheme which allowed them to sell
the property.

In 2008 the land was valued by the LPS at GBP1.5 million for
educational purposes and GBP7.5 million for residential use. To
ensure the land could not be resold for profit, the sale to NEELB
was by way of a 999 year lease restricting the use of the land to
educational purposes only. The site full planning permission was
obtained in February 2009.

The sale was finally completed in February 2010 for GBP1.2
million, less GBP250,000 for site remediation costs. These costs
were calculated by consultants appointed by NEELB.

However following a probe by the Audit Office, it recommended that
'all Departments clearly track and account for how "ring-fenced"
money is spent and ensure that the process is transparent to the
Assembly and the local communities it was intended to support'.

The report stated: "Delays, such as those encountered at the
Magherafelt site, impact on the local community and result in
significant costs to the public sector

"It is evident that many factors have contributed to the six-year
delay in the sale of the site to NEELB. These included a lack of
clarity over the terms of the transfer and/or sale; uncertainty
over the extent of contamination on the site; and significant
delays in the submission and approval of planning applications due
to the site's former use as a military base and the need for
consultation with a wide range of statutory bodies.

"Their impact however, is primarily on the community who was to
benefit from the redevelopment of the site. Our 2010 report 22 on
School Design and Delivery highlighted the issue of raising
expectations and delays in delivering school capital projects
after they have been announced."

A replacement primary and nursery school are underway at an
estimated cost of GBP4.8 million.  Funding for both the site
purchase and capital works is being provided by the Department of
Education.

The project is expected to be completed in November next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Lawmakers Finalize $22MM Spending Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Besecker, News Staff Reporter for Buffalo (N.Y.) News,
reports that city lawmakers on Nov. 29 finalized an infrastructure
spending plan for next year after the last-minute shuffling of a
quarter-million dollars.

The Common Council shifted $250,000 in the $22 million capital
budget from building abatements to projects in four Council
districts.

Here's how the funds will be used now:

     -- $75,000 for a boat launch at Buffalo River Park in the
        South Fillmore District.

     -- $75,000 for sidewalk improvements in the Niagara District.

     -- $50,000 for curb work in the North District.

     -- $50,000 for "Little Italy" signs on a portion of Hertel
        Avenue in the Delaware District.

Majority Leader Richard A. Fontana, who was the Council's lead
negotiator with Mayor Byron W. Brown's administration, said Brown
told him Nov. 28 that he does not plan to veto the proposal.

The proposal to spend the funds on cleaning up buildings by doing
such things as removing asbestos was "problematic," Fontana said,
because any bond sale for that project would have to be delayed.

The delay would be necessary because the city has borrowed money
for an ongoing assessment of buildings, the results of which would
be used to choose what buildings get attention, city officials
have said.

The spending plan includes $5 million for street, curb and
sidewalk work, $2.7 million for improvements to city buildings,
including community centers, and $2.68 million for building
demolitions. That figure for demolitions would be enough to take
down about 300 homes, Brown has said.

It also includes $1.33 million for parks improvements, $1.5
million for projects to turn Pearl Street into two-way traffic and
to improve the Chippewa Street streetscape.

Also on Nov. 29, the Common Council unanimously passed a
resolution calling for an investigation at an East Side apartment
complex and for the city to request action on unpaid water bills
at the property.

Ellicott Council Member Darius G. Pridgen said he wants the owners
of the complex investigated by either the state Attorney General's
Office or the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
because of allegedly poor living conditions and pursued through
either receivership or foreclosure for more than $700,000 in
overdue water bills.

Pridgen said the owner of Towne Gardens on Clinton Street, a
federally subsidized housing complex, owes that balance to Veolia
Water, the private firm that runs the city's water system.

The property owner, Towne Gardens LLC, has been unresponsive to
inquiries from his office, Pridgen has previously told his fellow
lawmakers.

A representative of Platinum Management Services in Brooklyn,
which manages the property, disputed Pridgen's claims in a phone
interview with The Buffalo News.

Moshe Feldman said his company was "unaware of any complaints"
about conditions at the 360-unit complex.

"I'm out there every couple weeks and the place looks great,"
Feldman said.

As far as the water bills, Feldman said there were some
"questionable fees and overages," and the company has an ongoing
dialogue with Veolia officials.

This complex is separate from another housing complex, formerly
known as Towne Gardens, now owned by Ellicott Community
Redevelopment Foundation, which is located at 221 and 291 William
St.

Those William Street properties are slated to be sold to Morgan
Ellicott Apartments for $2.5 million, according to the Council.

The Council gave the go-ahead to a sale for that property on
Nov. 29.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Former Tru-Value Bldg Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Sparling, Staff Writer at Zanesville Times Recorder,
reports that things are moving faster than expected on the
Crooksville Exempted Village School District's new building.

Good Builders Inc. crews started in October demolishing an older
portion of the former Frame's Super Duper and Tru-Value Hardware
building along Ohio 93, and all the asbestos has been cleaned out
of the property.

Crooksville schools bought the former Frame's building in 2009.
Initially, there was talk of turning it into an early learning
center for children, including a countywide program for autistic
children. Since then, however, the district's preschool has been
relocated into the high school, a setup that's working for
everyone, said Alea Barker, Crooksville's director of curriculum
and instruction. The early learning center still is an option,
Barker said, but the district might not want to uproot a preschool
program that's running well.

Other possible uses for the building include a multi-purpose
center for the community, a center for early college high school
classes or a professional development center, she said.

"We're not really sure as to exactly what we're going to do with
the site," she said. "We're just exploring many options because we
want to be sure those grant dollars are spent well."

Steve Good, Good Builders owner, said his crews should be finished
with the demo work in about a week or so. They're also crunching
up the concrete from the demolished section of the building,
recycling it to make a parking lot, he said.

To this point, the building project has been fully funded by a
$336,000 grant from the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund, Barker said.
The grant actually was awarded to the Perry County Board of
Commissioners, since schools themselves are not eligible for Clean
Ohio assistance.

Now Barker, the school's grant writer, is working to secure
additional funds, specifically from the Ohio Department of
Development.

"We are looking for as much money as we can find, frankly," she
said. "That's just the role of a grant writer."

Barker didn't have an estimate for the total cost of the project
to completion; that will depend on what it's used for, she said.

Once the demolition phase is complete, work will go on hold until
the district acquires more money and has more specific plans for
the property, Barker said. Seeking grant money is an unpredictable
process, and the project could pick back up in a week or two, or
it could take a few years, she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hygieneering Wins Contract With Chicago Hospital
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental-expert.com reports that Hygieneering, Inc. was
awarded another annual contract to conduct respiratory protection
training and fit testing for a major Chicago-based hospital.
Hygieneering provides safety consulting, environmental consulting,
testing and training, asbestos project management, emergency
response services and more.

Hygieneering's team of Certified Industrial Hygienists and other
staff professionals provide indoor air quality testing, mold
inspection and industrial hygiene exposure assessments.

Hygieneering, Inc.'s safety consulting services include OSHA
safety training on the topics of OSHA construction training, OSHA
general industry training, fall protection, lockout/tagout,
confined space and more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homer Boys & Girls Club Extends HERC Lease
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Armstrong, Staff Writer for Homer News, reports that the
embattled Homer Boys & Girls Club in Alaska got some breathing
room to continue raising money and come up with a new plan for
staying in what's now called the Homer Education and Recreation
Complex, or HERC.  With no objection, the Homer City Council at
its Nov. 28 meeting approved extending the club's lease until May
31, 2012, or the end of the school year.

As part of the lease, the Boys & Girls Club will pay $750 a month
for utilities. Council member Bryan Zak introduced an amendment
lowering that to $1 a month, but it failed.

Since the Homer club's founding, the Kenai Peninsula clubs have
invested $1 million in keeping it running.  With a summer program,
the club costs $67,000 a year to run, or $37,000 for the school-
year program. The club hasn't had a summer program in three years.

Cooper said recent fundraisers have brought in almost $14,000,
with two more fundraisers and a pledge drive coming up. The task
force has formed a building committee to look at solutions for the
HERC, such as making it more energy efficient and addressing
hazardous materials issues like asbestos insulation.  Community
Recreation Director Mike Illg presented a draft plan for a Homer
Recreation Center that would remodel it into a center for
educational and recreational programs for all ages.  The plan also
presented a fee schedule for raising money by renting it out for
events like birthday parties, performances, weddings and
workshops.

City Manager Walt Wrede noted that the HERC could be rented for
uses like Fireweed Academy, Homer's local charter school, if code
requirements like sprinklers were added.  Organizations sometimes
don't have money to pay for costs like that upfront, but the cost
can be recovered through rent, he noted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Lawyer Joins Million Dollar Advocates Forum
------------------------------------------------------------------
STLtoday.com reports that Randy Gori, Esq., of Gori Julian &
Associates P.C. in Edwardsville, Ill., was certified as a member
of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, a prestigious group of
United States trial lawyers. Membership in the Million Dollar
Advocates Forum is limited to attorneys who have won million and
multi-million dollar verdicts, awards and settlements.  Gori
specializes in asbestos litigation, benzene litigation and
personal injury.

Mr. Gori may be reached at:

          GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 North Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Tel: 618-307-4085
               888-362-6890
          Fax: 618-659-9834


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Subpoena Issue Goes to Maryland Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada sent objections to the subpoena
served on the Western Asbestos Settlement Trust to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore
Division, where a insurance coverage lawsuit is pending.

Before the Nevada court is a Motion to Compel Compliance with
Subpoena filed by National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pa. and American Home Assurance Company.  The Insurers
wish to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to third party,
WAST.  While the parties' joint statement indicates an agreement
that the Motion to Compel need not be heard, the motion was not
withdrawn, and the parties further agreed that an issue with
respect to the subpoena remained to be heard and determined by the
Nevada court.

The matter arises out of litigation currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., et al. v. Porter Hayden
Company, 1:03-cv-03408-CCB, and Porter Hayden Co., et al. v.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. Of Pittsburgh, Pa., 1:03-cv-03414-
CCB.  The Coverage Action arose out of a dispute between the
Porter Hayden Company and its insurers, National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., and American Home Assurance
Company.

Porter Hayden was an industrial and commercial insulation
contractor operating in the Mid-Atlantic states from the 1920s to
the late 1980s.  Until 1973, some of the insulation materials
handled, sold or distributed by Porter Hayden contained asbestos.
In 2000, the Coverage Action was filed, seeking to determine the
extent of any obligation on the part of the Insurers to defend and
indemnify Porter Hayden for its asbestos bodily injury
liabilities.  In 2003, Porter Hayden filed a petition in
bankruptcy and pursued a chapter 11 reorganization with a
channeling injunction issued under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(g).  Porter
Hayden's reorganization plan was confirmed in 2006, and all of its
non-liquidated asbestos-related bodily injury liabilities,
existing or future, were channeled to the Porter Hayden Bodily
Injury Trust.

In the course of discovery in the Coverage Action, the Insurers
issued Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoenas to four
asbestos claims processing facilities and to WAST.  WAST has
objected to certain aspects of the subpoena.  Asbestos claims
processing facilities, and asbestos trusts administer the
submission, processing and payment of claims for compensation for
asbestos-related bodily injuries by individuals against a number
of former tort defendants.  Specifically, WAST, located in Nevada,
administers claims for the MacArthur Company, Western Asbestos
Company and Western MacArthur Company.  The subpoenas were issued
from the district courts where the claims processing facilities
were located, New Jersey, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and
Nevada.

The subpoenas sought documents from WAST and the claims processing
facilities with respect to claimants who brought asbestos bodily
injury claims against both the PHBIT and any of the other trusts
for which the claims processing facilities handle claims. The
Insurers have argued in the Coverage Action that if they owe any
obligation to reimburse Porter Hayden for bodily injury claims
that have been paid through the PHBIT, then the amounts of such
settlements must have been reasonable.  The Insurers wish to
determine through the documents requested in the subpoenas whether
claimants who filed claims for compensation with both PHBIT and
one or more other trusts provided consistent information to each
trust as to work, exposure and medical history. The documents, the
Insurers argue, will allow them to determine the reasonableness of
the claims settlements paid by the PHBIT, both as to consistency
and value.

Each of the claims processing facilities and WAST issued
objections to the subpoenas.  Through meet and confer efforts, the
Insurers agreed to limit the scope of information sought, and in
turn the claim processing facilities and WAST agreed to produce
that limited amount of claimant information. Each of these
agreements, however, was contingent upon WAST and Insurers
entering into a confidentiality agreement and protective order, to
be filed in the Coverage Action, to protect the claimants'
confidential information and to provide a process by which the
claimants could object to the production of their claim
information.  As to each of the claims processing facilities,
except for WAST, a confidentiality agreement and protective order
has been entered into, the claimants have been notified of the
proposed production, and counsel on their behalf have filed
objections in the Coverage Action in Maryland.  Those objections,
along with other discovery motions, are set for a hearing in the
District of Maryland on Dec. 15, 2011.

After being served with the subpoena, WAST reserved its right to
serve objections to production of the materials sought pursuant to
Rule 45(c)(2)(B).  After unsuccessful attempts between the
Insurers and WAST to resolve the scope of the subpoenas, the
Insurers brought the Motion to Compel.

In the interim, with respect to the subpoena issued to WAST, the
Insurers agreed to limit the requested information to the claim
forms submitted by the claimants, and WAST agreed to provide that
information, subject to measures to protect the claimants.  The
parties have already taken the initial steps toward that
production.  The only remaining point of contention is where the
claimants themselves should file any objections they may have to
the document production, i.e., the District of Nevada, where the
subpoena was issued; or Maryland, where the Coverage Action is
pending, and where the objections from claimants in other
jurisdictions are being resolved.

The Nevada case is NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA., AND AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. PORTER
HAYDEN COMPANY, et al., No. 3:11-cv-00014 (D. Nev.).  A copy of
the Court's Dec. 2, 2011 Order is available at http://is.gd/0Rei5B
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: E.D.N.Y. Court Rules on Prisoner's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Theadore Black, currently serving a term of five years on a state
conviction for weapons possession, sued for damages under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against (1) the parole officers who assisted in
his arrest; and (2) the Department of Corrections employees who,
according to Black, either failed to properly care for him or
subjected him to unwarranted disciplinary charges while in
custody.  Both groups of defendants have moved to dismiss the case
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Black has filed opposition and
has also proposed an amended complaint that adds additional
defendants and additional allegations of wrongdoing against the
Corrections Defendants.

In a Dec. 1, 2011 Memorandum Decision and Order, District Judge
Brian M. Cogan granted the Parole Officers' motion; granted in
part the Corrections Defendants' motion to dismiss; and denied
Black's motion to amend the complaint, except that his new
allegations regarding supportive footwear are deemed to be added
to his original complaint.

In his initial complaint, Black made these allegations concerning
the conditions of his confinement: (1) it took six months for
prison officials to provide Black with supportive footwear to
relieve his diabetes-related foot pain; (2) two Corrections
Defendants wrote false misbehavior reports, and the hearing
officer wrongfully found him guilty; and (3) Black told three
prison counselors that he could not tolerate dormitory living
arrangements and told the Captain that if he was not placed in
isolation, he would have to assault another prisoner to be moved
there, but they refused to move him.  In his proposed amended
complaint, Black adds these allegations: (1) on two occasions,
three previously unnamed defendants took his supportive footwear
and the New York City Comptroller declined to settle Black's
claim; (2) his wheelchair-bound friend was sexually harassed by an
unnamed Department of Corrections employee when she came to visit
Black; (3) his "legal work" was destroyed in a fire; (4) he was
exposed to lead or asbestos poisoning in his cell prior to trial;
(5) the facility where he is housed does not have separate
urinals; (6) the beds in his dormitory are too close together; (6)
he did not receive diabetic meals for some period of time; and (7)
he was unreasonably denied a family visit on one occasion

With respect to his exposure claim, the Court noted that Black
does not allege that he has developed any diseases or conditions
relating to that exposure; it is common enough for people in any
environment to be exposed to toxins without injury.  Black
therefore does not allege facts sufficient for the Court to find
that the claim has crossed "the line from conceivable to
plausible," Judge Cogan said.

The case is THEADORE BLACK, v. EMILE BLACKMUN, et al., No. 11 Civ.
2372 (E.D.N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Cogan's decision is available at
http://is.gd/mVDYiLfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Over Worcester, Md. Home Goes to Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
A diversity case arising from a real estate transaction involving
a single-family home in Worcester County, Maryland, will go to
trial after District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander denied, in part,
the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The property was sold in September 2008 to Dona May Willoughby by
Paul Northam and Lynn Immell.  Ms. Willoughby's daughter and son-
in-law, Misha and Darren Lawley, were to reside at the Property.
Deborah Hileman and Hileman Real Estate, Inc., were the Sellers'
real estate agents and brokers.

Ms. Willoughby and the Lawleys sued Northam et al. after the
buyers discovered defects in the property when the Lawleys moved
in.  Defects include the presence of nitrates in the water,
asbestos in the basement, water infiltration, and molds.

Among other things, Judge Hollander said there is clearly a
factual dispute whether the defendants acted with intent to
deceive or defraud the buyers.  Summary judgment is inappropriate
on this ground.  The judge also held that there is a triable
question of fact as to whether the defendants acted with the
requisite "actual malice" necessary to justify an award of
punitive damages.

The case is DARREN LAWLEY, ET AL., v. PAUL E. NORTHAM, ET AL.,
Civil Action No. ELH-10-1074 (D. Md.).  A copy of Judge
Hollander's Dec. 1, 2011 Memorandum Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/BtFTw3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Nixes Teacher's Claim as Time-Barred
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Russo, a teacher, filed a petition before the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers'
Compensation, for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act,
N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128, against his employer, the Hoboken Board
of Education.  He alleged that he incurred pulmonary and related
injuries caused by his exposure to asbestos dust and dirt while at
work between 1990 and 1993.

The workers' compensation judge dismissed his petition holding
that a claim must be filed within two years after the date in
which the claimant first knew the nature of the disability and its
relation to the employment.  The WCJ pointed out that Mr. Russo
admitted knowledge of potential harmful effects of asbestos during
the remediation projects in the 1980s, and he had permanent loss
of bodily function in 2000 and 2001.  Therefore, the WCJ
concluded, Mr. Russon's claim filed on February 23, 2004, was time
barred.

In a Nov. 29, 2011 Memorandum and Opinion, Judge Carmen Messano
and Judge Marianne Espinosa of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal holding that the WCJ's
factual findings and legal determinations were not manifestly
unsupported by or inconsistent with competent relevant and
reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of
justice.

Because of the pernicious nature of occupational diseases, the
Legislature has been solicitous of workers who suffer from these
ailments, the Judges said.  Nonetheless, timely filing of the
petition is a jurisdictional prerequisite, they added.

The case is Russo v. Hoboken Board of Education, No. A-1861-10T4,
N.J. Super., App. Div.  A copy of the Nov. 29, 2011 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/iV8LPzfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Estimates $51.7MM for Libby Studies
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its
former vermiculite operations in Libby, Montana, at September 30,
2011, was $51.7 million, according to the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, in 1963 and
operated it until 1990. Vermiculite ore from the Libby mine was
used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other products.
Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby mine was
contaminated with naturally-occurring asbestos. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has investigated sites,
including sites owned by Grace that used and stored or processed
vermiculite from the Libby mine. Grace and other potentially
responsible parties have conducted investigations and/or remedial
actions at those sites identified by the EPA as requiring remedial
action.

During 2010, the EPA commenced a reinvestigation of up to 105
former or currently operating plants, including five owned by
Grace at September 30, 2011, at which vermiculite from the Libby
mine was processed prior to 1990. Grace is cooperating with the
EPA on this reinvestigation. Grace evaluates its estimated
remediation liability as it receives additional information
regarding potential remediation of these sites.

Grace's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation studies
and other estimable matters related to its former vermiculite
operations in Libby, as well as the cost of remediation at
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, at September 30,
2011 and December 31, 2010 was $51.7 million and $52.7 million,
respectively, excluding interest where applicable. This estimated
liability does not include the cost to remediate the Libby mine or
costs related to any additional EPA claims which may be material
but are not currently estimable. As Grace receives new
information, its estimated liability may change materially.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Gets 3,750 New Claims in 9 Months in 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 3,750
new asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended September
30, 2011, according to MetLife Inc.'s November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has
never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products
nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance
to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation
matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous
variables, including differences in legal rulings in various
jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions to dismiss. There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

As reported in the 2010 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
5,670 asbestos-related claims in 2010. During the nine months
ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, MLIC received approximately
3,750 and 4,800 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.  The
number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount
of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the U.S., assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2011.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Faces 180 PI Cases in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc., continues to face
approximately 180 personal injury asbestos cases in Maryland state
courts as of September 30, 2011, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In 1993, Potomac Electric Power Company was served with Amended
Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's
County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in separate
ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case." Pepco and other corporate entities were brought
into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this
theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working
on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of approximately 448
individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the
pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff
sought $2 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in
punitive damages from each defendant.

As of September 30, 2011, there are approximately 180 cases still
pending against Pepco in the Maryland State Courts, of which
approximately 90 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and
were tendered to Mirant Corporation (Mirant) for defense and
indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its
generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is
approximately $360 million, PHI and Pepco believe the amounts
claimed by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated. The
amount of total liability, if any, and any related insurance
recovery cannot be determined at this time. If an unfavorable
decision were rendered against Pepco, it could have a material
adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI or Pepco Holdings), a Delaware
corporation incorporated in 2001, is a holding company that,
through these regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged
primarily in the transmission, distribution and default supply of
electricity and the distribution and supply of natural gas (Power
Delivery): (1) Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), (2)
Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL), and (3) Atlantic City
Electric Company (ACE).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Can't Estimate Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Emmett, Inc., cannot estimate obligations to remove
asbestos from 20 properties in its portfolio, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Conditional asset retirement obligations represent a legal
obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the
timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future
event that may or may not be within the Company's control.  A
liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation must be
recorded if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably
estimated.  Environmental site assessments and investigations have
identified 20 properties in the Company's consolidated portfolio
containing asbestos, which would have to be removed in compliance
with applicable environmental regulations if these properties
undergo major renovations or are demolished.  As of September 30,
2011, the obligations to remove the asbestos from these properties
have indeterminable settlement dates, and the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the fair value of the associated conditional
asset retirement obligation.

Douglas Emmett, Inc., is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).
Through its subsidiaries, the Company owns, manages, leases,
acquires and develops real estate, consisting primarily of office
and multifamily properties.  As of September 30, 2011, it owns a
consolidated portfolio of 50 office properties (including
ancillary retail space) and nine multifamily properties, as well
as the fee interests in two parcels of land subject to ground
leases.  Alongside its consolidated portfolio, the Company also
manages and owns equity interests in unconsolidated Funds that, at
September 30, 2011, owned eight additional office properties, for
a combined 58 office properties in its total portfolio.  All of
these properties are located in Los Angeles County, California and
Honolulu, Hawaii.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes & NATCO Named in 40 Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and a former subsidiary are
identified in 40 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits that
plaintiffs intend to pursue, according to the Company's November
4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership,
is named as a defendant in approximately 251 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between
1989 and 2000. All of the cases filed against the Company prior to
1996 were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases
filed since that time have similarly been administratively
transferred to the inactive docket. Over the last year, hundreds
of lawsuits have been reactivated in an effort to clean out the
administrative docket.

Prior to the commencement of discovery in any of the reactivated
cases, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name a group of cases that
they intended to pursue and to dismiss the remaining cases without
prejudice. Plaintiffs have currently named 40 cases against the
Company that they intend to pursue, each of which involves one
plaintiff. The remaining cases against the Company have been
dismissed. Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases could file a new
lawsuit if they develop a new disease allegedly caused by exposure
to asbestos on board the Company's vessels. The Company is
presently unable to quantify the amounts of damages being sought
in these lawsuits because none of the complaints specify a damage
amount. The Company does not believe that it is probable that
losses from these claims could be material, and an estimate of a
range of losses relating to these claims cannot reasonably be
made. Based on the foregoing, management does not believe that the
40 lawsuits, individually and in the aggregate, will have a
material impact on the Company's business, financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation provides dredging services in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Records $1.9MM Removal Cost at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation records accruals for estimated
retirement obligations. The asset retirement obligations relate
primarily to the removal of asbestos and contaminated soil during
development or redevelopment of the properties as well as the
estimated equipment removal costs upon termination of a certain
lease under which the Company is the lessee. At September 30, 2011
and December 31, 2010, the amount included in other liabilities on
the condensed consolidated balance sheets was approximately $1.9
million and $2.1 million, respectively, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

CoreSite Realty Corporation was organized in the state of Maryland
on February 17, 2010 and is a fully integrated, self-administered,
and self-managed real estate investment trust. Through its
controlling interest in CoreSite, L.P., the Company is engaged in
the business of owning, acquiring, constructing and managing
technology-related real estate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Expects Claims Filed Until 2050
-------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to face asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

During the third quarters of 2011 and 2010, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable. In the third quarters of 2011 and 2010, management
determined that the liability remained appropriate and no change
was recorded. The Company plans to update its study again the in
third quarter of 2012.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60%, 80% and 95% of the future
unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15
and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern
Santa Fe, LLC, and is the principal operating subsidiary of BNSF.
On February 12, 2010, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a Delaware
corporation, acquired 100% of the outstanding shares of Burlington
Northern Santa Fe common stock that it did not already own. The
acquisition was completed through the merger of Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation with and into R Acquisition Company,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary of Berkshire (Merger Sub), with Merger Sub
continuing as the surviving entity. In connection with the Merger,
Merger Sub changed its name to "Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC"
and remains an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Face Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries have been named in
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos.
To date, neither the Company nor the Company's subsidiaries have
been found liable for or paid any material sum of money in
settlement in any case.  The Company believes that the minimal use
of asbestos in the Company's past and current operations and the
relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in the Company's
products makes it unlikely that the Company will face material
liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in
the aggregate.  The Company does maintain insurance coverage for
these potential liabilities and the Company believes adequate
coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation and its subsidiaries is a diversified,
multinational manufacturing and service company that designs,
manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems and
provides highly engineered products and services to the aerospace,
defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil, petrochemical,
agricultural equipment, railroad, power generation, security, and
metalworking industries. Operations are conducted through 59
manufacturing facilities and 64 metal treatment service
facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Detroit Edison Records Fermi 1 Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, The Detroit Edison Company began the final
decommissioning of Fermi 1, with the goal of removing the
remaining radioactive material and terminating the Fermi 1
license. In the first quarter of 2011, based on management
decisions revising the timing and estimate of cash flows, Detroit
Edison accrued an additional $19 million with respect to the
decommissioning of Fermi 1. Management intends to suspend
decommissioning activities and place the facility in safe storage
status. The expense amount has been recorded in Asset (gains) and
losses, net on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. In the
second quarter of 2011, based on updated studies revising the
timing and estimate of cash flows, a reduction of approximately
$20 million was made to the Detroit Edison asset retirement
obligation for asbestos removal with approximately $6 million of
the decrease associated with Fermi 1 recorded in Asset (gains) and
losses, net on the Consolidated Statements of Operations,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Detroit Edison is an electric utility engaged in the generation,
purchase, distribution and sale of electricity to approximately
2.1 million customers in southeastern Michigan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Asbestos-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company. The Company is a co-
defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs. The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
determined at this time, according to the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Batavia, New York, Graham Corporation is a global
designer and manufacturer of custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum
systems, condensers, liquid ring pump packages and heat exchangers
to the refining and petrochemical industries, and a nuclear code
accredited supplier of components and raw materials to the nuclear
power generating market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Continues to Defend Asbestos Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., remains a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

IPL is a defendant in approximately 50 pending lawsuits alleging
personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to
asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL
power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises defendant", which
means that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install
asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have been
brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or
subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance which may cover
some portions of these claims; currently, these cases are being
defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote
policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged.

It is possible that material additional loss with regard to the
asbestos lawsuits could be incurred. At this time, an estimate of
additional loss cannot be made. IPL has settled a number of
asbestos related lawsuits for amounts which, individually and in
the aggregate, were not material to IPL's or IPALCO's results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Historically,
settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised of proceeds
from one or more insurers along with comparatively smaller
contributions by IPL. Additionally, approximately 40 cases were
dropped by plaintiffs in 2010 without requiring a settlement. The
Company is unable to estimate the number of, the effect of, or
losses or range of loss which are reasonably possible from the
pending lawsuits or any additional asbestos suits. Furthermore,
the Company is unable to estimate the portion of a settlement
amount, if any, that may be paid from any insurance coverage for
any known or unknown claims. Accordingly, there is no assurance
that the pending or any additional suits will not have a material
adverse effect on IPALCO's results of operations, financial
condition, or cash flows.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., is a holding company incorporated under
the laws of the state of Indiana. IPALCO is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The AES Corporation. IPALCO was acquired by AES in
March 2001. IPALCO owns all of the outstanding common stock of its
subsidiaries. Substantially all of IPALCO's business consists of
the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric
energy conducted through its principal subsidiary, Indianapolis
Power & Light Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Named in 15 Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company is a party to 15 asbestos-related lawsuits
in Mississippi as of September 30, 2011, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
on drilling rigs and associated facilities.  At September 30,
2011, there were approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which the
Company is one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed
in the United States in the State of Mississippi.

The subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related lawsuits intend
to defend themselves vigorously and, based on the information
available to the Company at this time, the Company do not expect
the outcome to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However,
the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at September 30, 2011.

Parker Drilling, together with its subsidiaries, is a worldwide
provider of rental tools, drilling services, and project
management services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defending 4,445 Claims at Oct. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 4,445 asbestos-related
claims as of October 26, 2011, according to the Company's November
4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products that the Company previously
manufactured. The Company produced asbestos-containing paper
machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the
period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such
fabrics generally had a useful life of three to 12 months.

The Company was defending 4,446 claims as of October 26, 2011.
This compares with 4,714 claims as of July 25, 2011, 4,799 claims
as of April 18, 2011, 5,158 claims as of February 11, 2011, and
5,170 claims as of October 29, 2010. These suits allege a variety
of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products
that the Company previously manufactured.

The Company anticipates that additional claims will be filed
against it and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. These suits
typically involve claims against from twenty to more than two
hundred defendants, and many complaints fail to identify the
plaintiffs' work history or the nature of the plaintiffs' alleged
exposure to the Company's products. Pleadings and discovery
responses in cases in which work histories have been provided
indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in approximately 15%
of the total claims filed against the Company to date, and only a
portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill
to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-
containing products.

The significant increase in the number of dismissed claims during
2009 and early 2010 was in large part the result of changes in the
administration of claims assigned to the multidistrict litigation
panel of the federal district courts. As of October 26, 2011, 453
claims remained against the Company in the MDL. This compares to
12,758 claims that were pending at the MDL as of February 6, 2009.

With respect to claims remaining at the MDL, future discovery may
yield more relevant information regarding work histories and the
basis, if any, for a plaintiff's claim against the Company. The
Company does not currently believe a meaningful estimate can be
made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to the
claims remaining at the MDL, although this conclusion could change
as the MDL's efforts to advance resolution of these claims
progresses.

As of October 26, 2011, the remaining 3,993 claims pending against
the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than
the MDL. Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which
work histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper
mill exposure in approximately 25% of claims reported, and only a
portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill
to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-
containing products. For these reasons, the Company expects the
percentage of these remaining claimants able to demonstrate time
spent in a paper mill to which the Company supplied asbestos-
containing products during a period in which the Company's
asbestos-containing products were in use to be considerably lower
than the total number of pending claims. Detailed exposure and
disease information sufficient meaningfully to estimate a range of
possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial
date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For
these reasons, the Company does not believe a meaningful estimate
can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to
these remaining claims.

It is the Company's position, and the position of other paper
machine clothing defendants, that there was insufficient exposure
to asbestos from any paper machine clothing products to cause
asbestos-related injury to any plaintiff. Furthermore, asbestos
contained in the Company's synthetic products was encapsulated in
a resin-coated yarn woven into the interior of the fabric, further
reducing the likelihood of fiber release. While the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims, the Company
has settled certain of these cases for amounts it considers
reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. The
Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and
funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of
October 26, 2011, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 36,280 claims. The total cost of resolving all
claims was $8.116 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by
the Company's insurance carrier. The Company has approximately
$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be
available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as
well as additional insurance coverage that the Company should be
able to access.

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Unit Defending 7,877 Claims at Oct. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.,
which is a subsidiary of Albany International Corp., is a separate
defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named
as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,877 claims as of
October 26, 2011, according to the Company's November 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.  This was the same as of
July 25, 2011, and compares with 7,876 claims as of April 18,
2011, 7,868 claims as of February 11, 2011, and 7,869 claims as of
October 29, 2010.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from
Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the
assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among
other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its
parent, Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of
asbestos-containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.
Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own
name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics
contained asbestos.

Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon
and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon
harmless from any actions or claims on account of products
manufactured by Abney and its related corporations prior to the
date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold subsequent
to the date of the sale. It appears that Abney has since been
dissolved. Nevertheless, a representative of Abney has been
notified of the pendency of these actions and demand has been made
that it assume the defense of these actions. Because Brandon did
not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does
not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. In some instances,
plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed claims against it, while in
others it has entered into what it considers to be reasonable
settlements.

As of October 26, 2011, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 9,721 claims for a total of $0.2 million.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The
remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon.
During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

No amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001
and the Company does not believe a meaningful estimate can be made
regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these
remaining claims.

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Still Faces Mount Vernon-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is named both as a direct defendant and
as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills in some
asbestos cases, according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated
to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such
products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by
Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.
Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount
Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Has Nominal Reserve for Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2011, Alamo Group Inc. had an environmental
reserve in the amount of $1,189,000 related to the acquisition of
Gradall Company's facility in New Philadelphia, Ohio. The Company
has a nominal reserve concerning a potential asbestos issue that
is expected to be remediated over time, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011. The
balance of the reserve, $1,185,000, is mainly for potential ground
water contamination/remediation that was identified before the
acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third party
company located near the Gradall facility.

Alamo Group, Inc., is engaged in the design, manufacture,
distribution and service of equipment for right-of-way maintenance
and agriculture. The Company's products include tractor-mounted
mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street
sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment,
pothole patchers, zero turn radius mowers, agricultural implements
and related aftermarket parts and services. The Company operates
primarily in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada
and Australia. On October 22, 2009, the Company completed the
acquisition of all the assets of Bush Hog, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Continues to Defend 107 Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries are facing at least 107
pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of September 30, 2011,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Ameren Corp., Ameren Missouri or Union Electric Company, Ameren
Illinois or Ameren Illinois Company and EEI have been named, along
with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by
plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each
case varies, with as many as 221 parties named in some pending
cases and as few as two in others. However, in the cases that were
pending as of September 30, 2011, the average number of parties
was 79.

The claims filed against Ameren, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois
and Genco allege injury from asbestos exposure during the
plaintiffs' activities at the Company's present or former energy
centers. Former CIPS energy centers are now owned by Genco, and
former CILCO energy centers are now owned by AERG. As a part of
the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO energy centers,
CIPS and CILCO, now Ameren Illinois, contractually agreed to
indemnify Genco and AERG, for liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded
at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.

The table presents the pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed
against the Ameren Companies as of September 30, 2011:

   Ameren Corp.                                    5
   Ameren Missouri or Union Electric Company      64
   Ameren Illinois or Ameren Illinois Company     81
   Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco)       (b)
                                               -----
                      Total(a)                   107

   (a) Total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit
       lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren
       entities as defendants.

   (b) As of September 30, 2011, six asbestos-related lawsuits
       were pending against EEI. The general liability insurance
       maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
       liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims.

At September 30, 2011, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois
and Genco had liabilities of $20 million, $8 million, $12 million,
and $- million, respectively, recorded to represent their best
estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are recovered from a trust fund established
when Ameren acquired IP. At September 30, 2011, the trust fund
balance was approximately $23 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash
expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through
charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.

Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility
holding company under PUHCA 2005, administered by FERC. Ameren's
primary assets are the common stock of its subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG's A&E Reserves Were $375 Million at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s Asbestos and Environmental
Reserves were $375 million at September 30, 2011, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In the second quarter of 2011, AFG completed a comprehensive study
of its asbestos and environmental exposures relating to the run-
off operations of its property and casualty group and its
exposures related to former railroad and manufacturing operations
and sites.

As a result of the study, AFG recorded a $50 million special
charge (net of reinsurance) to increase the property and casualty
group's asbestos reserves by $28 million and its environmental
reserves by $22 million. At September 30, 2011, the property and
casualty group's A&E reserves were $375 million, net of
reinsurance recoverables. At that date, AFG's three year survival
ratio was 17.8 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and
12.0 times paid losses for the total A&E reserves. Excluding
amounts associated with the settlements of asbestos related
coverage litigation for A.P. Green Industries and another large
claim, AFG's three year survival ratio was 11.3 and 8.5 times paid
losses for the asbestos reserves and total A&E reserves,
respectively. These ratios compare favorably with A.M. Best's most
recent report on A&E survival ratios (February 2011) which were
8.3 for asbestos and 7.7 for total industry A&E reserves.

The property and casualty group's asbestos reserve increase
related primarily to exposures on business assumed from other
insurers resulting from an increase in anticipated aggregate
exposures in several large settlements involving several insurers
in which AFG has a small proportionate share. Some insurers have
settled long-standing asbestos exposures with their insureds and
are seeking payment from reinsurers. Asbestos reserves related to
the property and casualty group's direct asbestos exposures were
increased to reflect higher frequency and severity of mesothelioma
and other cancer claims as well as increased defense costs on many
of these claims. These trends were partially offset by a decline
in the number of claims without serious injury and fewer new
claims that required payment being reported to AFG. The increase
in the property and casualty group's environmental reserves was
attributed primarily to a small number of increases on specific
environmental claims at several sites.

In addition to the property and casualty group, the study
encompassed reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures of
AFG's former railroad and manufacturing operations. As a result of
the study, AFG recorded a $9 million special charge (included in
other expenses) to increase its (i) asbestos reserves by $3
million in recognition of a higher number of expected mesothelioma
and lung cancer cases than had previously been estimated,
partially offset by a decrease in the number of claims without
serious injury and (ii) environmental reserves by $6 million due
primarily to higher estimated costs with respect to several
existing sites. At September 30, 2011, AFG had liabilities
totaling $99 million for environmental and personal injury claims
associated with its former railroad and manufacturing operations.

The study relied on a ground-up exposure analysis. With respect to
asbestos, it considered products and non-products exposures, paid
claims history, the pattern of new claims, settlements and
projected development. The asbestos legal climate remains very
difficult to predict. While some progress has been made in state
asbestos tort reform and judicial rulings, that progress has been
somewhat offset by increased claims costs, increased defense
costs, the assertion of non-products theories and an expanding
pool of plaintiffs and defendants.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Boosts Asbestos Reserves by $6.2MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the third quarter of 2011, Argo Group International Holdings,
Ltd., conducted an in-depth review of its asbestos and
environmental liability reserves. As a result, the Company
strengthened asbestos reserves by $6.2 million due to increased
severities and defense costs.  Loss reserves for the environmental
claims were increased $3.5 million primarily for one significant
environmental site. Management regularly monitors and evaluates
the activity of these claims and adjustments to the reserves may
be recorded during any reporting period, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The asbestos and environmental unfavorable development is
primarily attributable to $8.2 million for asbestos losses driven
by increasing severities, defense costs and the settlement of a
disputed reinsurance recoverable matter, and $3.5 million for
environmental losses driven by one significant environmental loss.

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. (Argo Group) is an
international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market. Argo Group's
operations included four business segments: Excess and Surplus
Lines, Commercial Specialty, Reinsurance and International
Specialty. Additionally, Argo Group has a Run-off Lines segment
for products the Company no longer underwrite.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Had $160MM for Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., had approximately $160 million of
insurance coverage it believes is available to cover current and
future asbestos claims against GST LLC at September 30, 2011,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Three of the Company's subsidiaries filed voluntary Chapter 11
bankruptcy petitions on June 5, 2010, as a result of tens of
thousands of pending and expected future asbestos personal injury
claims. The filings were the initial step in a claims resolution
process. The goal of the process is an efficient and permanent
resolution of all pending and future asbestos claims through court
approval of a plan of reorganization that will establish a trust
to which all asbestos claims will be channeled for resolution and
payment.

The historical business operations of Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC -- GST LLC -- and The Anchor Packing Company -- Anchor -- have
resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation in which
plaintiffs have alleged personal injury or death as a result of
exposure to asbestos fibers. Those subsidiaries manufactured
and/or sold industrial sealing products, predominately gaskets and
packing, that contained encapsulated asbestos fibers. Anchor is an
inactive and insolvent indirect subsidiary of Coltec Industries
Inc.  The Company's subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos litigation
and their relationships with insurance carriers have been managed
through another Coltec subsidiary, Garrison Litigation Management
Group, Ltd.  GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison may be collectively
referred to as "GST."

At September 30, 2011, the Company had approximately $160 million
of insurance coverage the Company believe is available to cover
current and future asbestos claims against GST LLC and certain
expense payments. GST has collected insurance payments totaling
$30.6 million since the Petition Date. In addition, at the
Petition Date, the Company had classified $4.2 million of
otherwise available insurance as insolvent.

The Company's recorded asbestos liability at the Petition Date was
$472.1 million. As of the Petition Date, the Company had remaining
insurance and trust coverage of $192.4 million. Included was
$156.3 million in insured claims and expenses that the Company's
subsidiaries have paid out in excess of amounts recovered from
insurance. These amounts are recoverable under the terms of the
Company's insurance policies and coverage agreements, subject to
potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their
assignees, and have been billed to the insurance carriers.

EnPro Industries, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures and
markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include
sealing products, self-lubricating, non-rolling bearing products,
precision engineered components and lubrication systems for
reciprocating compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel,
natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines, including parts
and services for engines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Posts $0.9MM Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. recorded a liability of $0.9 million
at September 30, 2011, in relation to asbestos remediation,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In accordance with the Asset Retirement and Environmental
Obligations Topic of the Accounting Standards Codification,
Central recorded an asset retirement obligation, or ARO, for the
remediation of asbestos existing on its system. The asbestos
existing on Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s system is
primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to
the Clean Air Act of 1973. The Clean Air Act of 1973 established
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or
NESHAPs, that regulate the use of asbestos. The amount of the
regulatory asset and the related ARO liability on the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2011, was $0.9 million
and $1.7 million, respectively. The amount of the regulatory asset
and the related ARO liability on the accompanying Consolidated
Balance Sheet at December 31, 2010, was $1.0 million and $1.6
million, respectively.

Southern Star Central Corp., or Southern Star, is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of EFS-SSCC Holdings, LLC, or Holdings, which is
indirectly owned by GE Energy Financial Services, Inc., or GE, and
Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners and certain other
affiliated investment funds managed by Morgan Stanley
Infrastructure, Inc.  Southern Star was incorporated in Delaware
in September 2002 and operates as a holding company for its
regulated natural gas pipeline operations and development
opportunities. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., or
Central, is Southern Star's only operating subsidiary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Records $830MM Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation has recorded reserves, including reserves
related to asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of
$830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and
December 31, 2010, respectively, for proceedings and exposures,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.  The total of those reserves is primarily
related to Duke Energy Carolinas LLC.

Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses
incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke
Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of
probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total
of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages
for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or
use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57
million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke
Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate
resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the
amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30,
2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. These reserves are based
upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of
the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through
2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be
additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030.
In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030
related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates
incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded
on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current
estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection
period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the
number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the
average cost of resolving each such claim could change the
Company's estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or
favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution,
further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions
could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties
associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous
other factors outside the Company's control, management believes
that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos
liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages
above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke
Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self
insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second
quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance
carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance
recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is
$968 million in excess of the self insured retention.  Duke Energy
Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal
sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance
recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier
continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant
in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating
stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana's consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to
date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying
assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i)
the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during
construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating
plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among
exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without
federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions,
Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably
possible exposure in existing and future suits over the
foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of
exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are
made and more case law is established.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company primarily located in
the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States primarily
through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke
Energy Kentucky, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as
in South and Central America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS Int'l. Still Faces Claims From Old Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. remains a defendant in certain asbestos-
related claims relating to discontinued lines of business,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Two non-operating subsidiaries of a predecessor company, along
with a landfill and waste management business, were spun-off to
the Company's former stockholders in October 2002. The two former
subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related personal injury
claims.  The Company believes that it has no obligation for
asbestos related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries. In
addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in certain
asbestos-related claims relating to lines of business that were
discontinued over 20 years ago.  The Company believes that it is
sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to these
asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of business,
and the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

TMS International Corp., through its subsidiaries, is the largest
provider of outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North
America with a substantial international presence. The Company
operates at 78 customer sites in ten countries and has a raw
materials procurement network that extends to five continents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Remains Exposed to Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows of the company.

No further asbestos-related updates were reported in the Company's
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Manitowoc Company Inc (NYSE: MTW) is a global company specializing
in products for the food service and construction industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Subject to Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is routinely subject to civil claims, litigation
and arbitration, and regulatory investigations arising in the
ordinary course of the Company's present business as well as in
respect of the Company's divested businesses. Some of these
include claims related to the Company's current services and
operations, and asbestos-related claims concerning historic
operations of a predecessor affiliate. The Company believes that
it has strong defenses to these claims as well as adequate
insurance coverage in the event any asbestos-related claim is not
resolved in its favor. These claims have not had a material impact
on the Company to date and the Company believes that the
likelihood that a future material adverse outcome will result from
these claims is remote. However, if facts and circumstances change
in the future, the Company cannot be certain that an adverse
outcome of one or more of these claims would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

No further asbestos-related updates were reported in the Company's
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

MYR Group Inc. performs construction services in two business
segments: Transmission and Distribution ("T&D"), and Commercial
and Industrial ("C&I"). T&D customers include electric utilities,
private developers, cooperatives, municipalities and other
transmission owners nationwide. The Company provides a broad range
of services, which includes design, engineering, procurement,
construction, upgrade, maintenance and repair services with a
particular focus on construction, maintenance and repair
throughout the continental United States. The Company also
provides C&I electrical contracting services to facility owners
and general contractors in the western United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Faces Underwriters' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
lawsuit filed by underwriters seeking a declaration that they have
no obligation to indemnify the company for asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory judgment action
entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain underwriters at
Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited --
London Insurers -- in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption
Parish, Louisiana, against MII, JRMI and two insurer defendants,
Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers
have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily
injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts, and an environmental claim involving Babcock &
Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., a subsidiary of B&W -- B&W
PGG. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a
declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20 underlying
matters. This proceeding was stayed by the court on January 3,
2005.  The Company does not believe an adverse judgment or
material losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, the
Company has not accrued any amounts relating to this contingency.
Although there is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount
or potential range of loss is not estimable at this time. The
insurer-plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a
purported attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage
obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters
for which the Company has given notice that it could potentially
seek coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every
matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating
what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination
of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be
reasonably estimated.

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the Republic of Panama, is an engineering,
procurement, construction and installation company focused on
designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Defending "Antoine" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliates of McDermott International, Inc., continue to defend
themselves against a lawsuit alleging injuries for asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al., filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, approximately 88 plaintiffs filed suit against
approximately 215 defendants, including JRMI and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation, another affiliate of the Company,
generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and
unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were
allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen. On January 10, 2007, the
District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, without prejudice
to their right to refile their claims.

On January 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al., originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 21 plaintiffs
originally named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI
and approximately 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act
seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes,
solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. Boudreaux was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007. The District Court entered
an order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order
of the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-
defendants.

Additionally, on January 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Antoine,
et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial
District Court for Harris County, Texas, 43 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and
approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime
products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and
noise. On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order
staying all activity and deadlines in this matter other than
service of process and answer/appearance dates until further order
of the Court. The Antoine plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the Texas
District Court. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an
unspecified amount in both cases and attorneys' fees in the new
Antoine case.

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the Republic of Panama, is an engineering,
procurement, construction and installation company focused on
designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $64.5MM Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., recorded $64.5 million and
$68.4 million of asbestos and environmental reserves as of
September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, according
to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

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

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
underwrites commercial and personal property, and casualty
insurance coverage in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $13.8MM Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The reserves of Alleghany Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary,
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC (AIHL), for unpaid loss and loss
adjustment expenses include $13.8 million of gross reserves and
$13.7 million of net reserves as of September 30, 2011, and $14.1
million of gross reserves and $14.0 million of net reserves as of
December 31, 2010, for asbestos and environmental impairment
claims that arose from reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of
Capitol Transamerica Corporation and Platte River Insurance
Company between 1969 and 1976, the Company disclosed in its
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.
This subsidiary exited such business in 1976.

Based in New York, Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the
property and casualty and surety insurance business through its
wholly owned subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC (AIHL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Contests Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, continues to contest
asbestos-related claims against it, according to its November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy Inc. ("CenterPoint
Energy"), the indirect parent of CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC ("CenterPoint Houston") contain or have contained
asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.
CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint
Houston, have been named, along with numerous others, as a
defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim
injury due to exposure to asbestos.  Some of the claimants have
worked at locations owned by CenterPoint Energy or CenterPoint
Houston, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by CenterPoint Energy's subsidiaries.  CenterPoint Energy
anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.  In 2004, CenterPoint Energy sold its
generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to
Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP.  Under the
terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the generating
business from CenterPoint Energy and its sale to NRG Texas LP,
ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims
relating to the generating business has been assumed by NRG Texas
LP, but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense from NRG Texas LP.

Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CenterPoint Houston or CenterPoint Energy, as appropriate, intends
to continue vigorously contesting claims that are not considered
to have merit and CenterPoint Houston does not expect, based on
its experience to date, these matters, either individually or in
the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC,
engages in the electric transmission and distribution business in
the Texas Gulf Coast area that includes the city of Houston.
CenterPoint Houston is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.  At
September 30, 2011, CenterPoint Houston had four subsidiaries,
CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC, CenterPoint
Energy Transition Bond Company II, LLC, CenterPoint Energy
Transition Bond Company III, LLC and CenterPoint Energy
Restoration Bond Company, LLC.  Each is a special purpose Delaware
limited liability company formed for the principal purpose of
purchasing and owning transition and system restoration property,
issuing transition and system restoration bonds and performing
activities incidental thereto.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy, BGE Face 484 Open Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 484 individuals, who were never employees of Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company or Constellation Energy Group, Inc., have
pending asbestos-related claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, according to the
Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Since 1993, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company ("BGE") and certain
Constellation Energy subsidiaries have been involved in several
actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the
theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and
Constellation Energy knew of and exposed individuals to an
asbestos hazard.  In addition to BGE and Constellation Energy,
numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.

Approximately 484 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
Constellation Energy have pending claims each seeking several
million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.  Cross-
claims and third party claims brought by other defendants may also
be filed against BGE and Constellation Energy in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims, which have been resolved, have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or Constellation
Energy and a small minority of these cases have been resolved for
amounts that were not material to the Company's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial
docket.  At present, only a small number of the Company's pending
cases have reached the trial docket.  Given the limited discovery,
BGE and Constellation Energy do not know the specific facts that
the Company believes are necessary for it to provide an estimate
of the possible loss relating to these claims.  The specific facts
the Company does not know include:

   -- the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
      allegedly worked as contractors;

   -- the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

   -- the dates on which and the places where the exposure
      allegedly occurred; and

   -- the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
      exposure.

The Company says insurance and hold harmless agreements from
contractors, who employed the plaintiffs, may cover a portion of
any awards in the actions.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, Constellation Energy Group,
Inc.'s utility, Baltimore Gas and Electric, distributes
electricity and natural gas in central Maryland.  The Company
trades and markets wholesale energy through subsidiary
Constellation Energy Commodities Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Puts No Value to Post-June '03 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are
successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved
with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to future
claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at
the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's
assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held
that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003.  In 2010, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $15
million including estimated legal fees to increase its accrual for
asbestos related costs for claims pending in Texas on
June 11, 2003.  The Company believes that the decision of the
Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the
Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending
against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003, and therefore
continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.

The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as
amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.  Adverse
rulings in cases challenging the constitutionality of the
Pennsylvania statute could have a material impact on the Company.

No further asbestos-related updates were reported in the Company's
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Receives 2T New Claims in 3rdQ
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Crown Holdings,
Inc. paid $14 million to settle outstanding asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for this
quarter.

The Company disclosed that it received 2,000 new asbestos-related
claims in the nine months ended September 30.  The Company also
recorded 2,000 claim settlements or dismissals, and 50,000 ending
claims.

The Company's Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. subsidiary is one of
many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the
insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose
stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.  About 90 days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.  The outstanding claims in each
period exclude 3,100 pending claims involving plaintiffs who
allege that they are, or were, maritime workers subject to
exposure to asbestos, but whose claims the Company believes will
not have a material effect on its consolidated results of
operations, financial position or cash flow.  The outstanding
claims also exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims.  Due to
the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the
plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the
Company.  The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on
the calculation of the Company's accrual as the claims were filed
in states where the Company's liability is limited by statute.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc., designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Has $1.3MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc., records accruals for estimated
retirement obligations as required by current accounting guidance.
The amount of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to
estimated asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life
of properties that were built before 1984.  As of September 30,
2011, and December 31, 2010, the amount included in accounts
payable and other accrued liabilities on the Company's condensed
consolidated balance sheets was approximately $1.3 million,
according to its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Headquartered in San Francisco, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns,
acquires, develops, redevelops and manages technology-related real
estate.  As of June 30, 2011, its portfolio consisted of 96
properties, excluding two properties held as investments in
unconsolidated joint ventures, of which 81 are located throughout
North America, 14 are located in Europe and one is located in
Asia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Continues to Defend Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc., continues to defend asbestos personal injury
lawsuits, according to its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, lawsuits and
administrative actions, which are of an ordinary or routine nature
for a company of its size and sector.  In addition, due to the
bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and other primary
defendants, among other things, the Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits.  The
Company has also been named as a defendant in a number of silica
personal injury lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege
exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically
the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.
In the Company's experience to date, the substantial majority of
the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company
bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silica litigation lawsuits.  However, neither the Company nor
its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that
allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.  Moreover,
the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were
enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica lawsuits filed
against the Company.  The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary.  The
latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Illinois, as
case number 10-L-48.  In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among
other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to
honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including
payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the
asbestos lawsuits filed against the Company.

The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure
from the Products described above; the Company's experience that
the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease
attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or
relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears
responsibility; various potential defenses available to the
Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior
disposition of comparable matters.  However, due to inherent
uncertainties of litigation and because future developments,
including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance
companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the
Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the
Company's historical insurers or indemnitors could cause a
different outcome.  While the outcome of legal proceedings is
inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience,
and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued
on its balance sheet related to this litigation are adequate and
that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.  In the event of unexpected future developments, it
is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operations or liquidity.  However, at this time, based on
presently available information, the Company views this
possibility as remote.

Headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania, Gardner Denver, Inc.,
designs, manufactures and markets engineered industrial machinery
and related parts and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Says Loss Reserves Will Not Be Adjusted
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of each year, Markel Corporation
completes an in-depth, actuarial review of its asbestos and
environmental exposures.  During the Company's 2011 and 2010
reviews, it determined that no adjustment to loss reserves was
required, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Asbestos and environmental loss reserves are subject to
significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and
frequency resulting from an uncertain and unfavorable legal
climate.

The Company's asbestos and environmental reserves are not
discounted to present value and are forecasted to pay out over the
next 50 years.  The Company seeks to establish appropriate reserve
levels for asbestos and environmental exposures; however, these
reserves could be subject to increases in the future.

Markel Corporation is a diverse financial holding company serving
a variety of niche markets.  Its principal business markets and
underwrites specialty insurance products and programs.  The
Company is based in Glen Allen, Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court
and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from the Company's product categories.  Most of these
claims have been dismissed and the Company's current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.  A
small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The balance of the claims is related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive products.  Only a
small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile
mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against the Company.

The Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it
is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not
be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their
work with these products.  Further, many of these cases involve
numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases
exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries.
Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify
the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.  As major
asbestos manufacturers continue to go out of business or file for
bankruptcy, the Company may experience an increased number of
these claims.

The Company says it vigorously defends itself against these claims
as part of its ordinary course of business.  In future periods,
the Company could be subject to charges to earnings if any of
these matters are resolved unfavorably to it.  To date, with
respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the
judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved favorable
resolutions.  Accordingly, the Company presently believes that
these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse
impact on its future consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, Tenneco Inc. produces
emission control and ride control products and systems for light,
commercial and specialty vehicle applications.


                           *********

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  * * *