CAR_Public/111216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 16, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 249

                             Headlines

ALL TAXI: Cabbies File Class Action Over Medallion Lease
AMCOR: More Than 1,000 Businesses to Get Settlement Payments
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Tunstall Merger
BAIN CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Samsonite Sale
BIG TOBACCO: Attorney-General Roxon Mulls Class Action

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action
CITY OF GRANITE, IL: Sued Over Excessive Towing Fees
COOPER COMPANIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
FOURSTAR GROUP: Recalls 25,500 Handheld Massage Pets
FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Inmates File Health Care Class Action

GOOGLE: Authors Guild Seek Certification of Digitization Suit
HCA HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Tennessee
HTC INC: Sued for Intercepting Private Electronic Communications
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Kickbacks
KOHLER CO: Wage Suit Obtains Class Certification

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Sued Over Unpaid Licensing Royalties
ORACLE CORP: 9th Circuit Revives Overtime Class Action
ROGERS: Offers Free Long-Distance Calls to Settle Class Action
SANOFI PASTEUR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Vaccine Monopoly
SUZE ORMAN: Sued in Missouri Over Legal Document Fees

TICKETMASTER: Proposes Shipping Charge Class Action Settlement
TOYS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 50 Baby Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TN: Sued for Violating Immigration Laws

* Two Class Action Lawyers Oppose No Contest Settlements Policy

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolseley to Sue Supplier for Mislabeled Gaskets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolseley Awaits Effects of Product Mislabeling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contamination Delays Glenside Site Redevelopment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Costs Halt "Haunted" Landmark Redo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Abatement Costs Blamed for Illegal Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Granted for Advocate Mines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naplate Board Grants $1,350 for Abatement Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Hazards Found at Mt. Greylock High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Contaminated Illinois Mall to Start
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Court Rule Change Irks Plaintiff Bar

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sarnia Mayor Asked to Visit Closed Quebec Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red Cross Asked to Kick Chadha Spouse From Board
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Site Waterways Still Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Costs Stops Buyers for Old Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Offers Help to Mesothelioma Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pearl Harbor Vets Face Mesothelioma Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NIOSH Warns of Mineral Similar to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Case Against Chow Brothers Adjourned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chrysotile Rocks Found on Darwin's Beaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Test Findings Raise Fear Among Ark. Residents

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Releases Declaration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mahoningside Site in Ohio Cleared of Toxics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Groups Call Out Obama and Harper
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avondale, Shell, DuPont & Am Oil Face Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Circuit Judge Sets 2013 Docket

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salem Co Fined Over Unlicensed Abatement Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Law Firm Expresses Support to ADAO/CVAV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bath Housing Tenants Offered Cash for Decors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Robreno Rejects Plaintiff's Expert Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Uncover Asbestos During Blaze

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children of Asbestosis Victim Sue Exxonmobil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Actor Dies From Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Diagnosed With Mesothelioma Gets $2 Million
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Say COD Is Both Industrial and Natural
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prior Work as Welder Blamed for Singer's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $268,000 Grant Starts Work on Parking lot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Timeline for YMCA Building Demolition Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Concern Grows Amid Initial EPA Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TV & Radio Ads Against Asbestos Hazard Return
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ron C. Eddins Receives Super Lawyer Honor

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roanoke School Bldgs Needs Repair/Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Risk Pushes Parents to Withdraw Students
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminant Find Adds C$150,000 to Project Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Cache Adds 6 Weeks to Glen Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Booklet on Choosing Asbestos Law Firm Published

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 'Hidden Killer' Campaign Resumes in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Directs Alcoa to Produce Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Finds No Case v. Huber's Attorneys
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. App. Ct. Says Waste Mgmt Can't Use Insurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Ct. Finds GE/CBS Immune From Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Ct. Finds Fulton Not Insured Prior to 1976
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Ct. Denies Fobbs' Service Connection Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Defends Suits in Canada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Continues to Monitor Grace Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,166 Open Cases vs. Central Hudson at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Pegs Remediation Costs at $2.8MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Posts $495.5M Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Defends Asbestos PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Unit Defends Asbestos-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Monitors Suit for Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arabian American Unit Defends Suit in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 8,156 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Pursues Suit vs. Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $202.7M Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Posts $3MM at Sept. 30 for Future Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Exposed to Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,297 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Liabilities Remain at $17.7MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Awaits Okay of Deal in Unit's Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Suits Over Gibsonburg Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Unit Defends 68,000 Claims as of Sept. 30





                          *********

ALL TAXI: Cabbies File Class Action Over Medallion Lease
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Zambito, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
veteran cabbies are suing to get back millions of dollars in bogus
charges they say fleet owners have been sneaking into their weekly
bills.

Four longtime hacks filed proposed class-action lawsuits in
Manhattan and Queens courts on Dec. 12, seeking overcharges they
and thousands of others paid to lease medallions that give them
license to pick up fares on city streets.

At stake could be millions of dollars in fees the cabbies have
kicked up to fleet owners.

"Price gouging of drivers is pervasive in the taxi industry," said
Dan Ackman, the lawyer representing drivers Diego De La Rosa,
Henry Desmangles, Khalid Pervaiz and Haroon Rashid.

Mr. Ackman says fleet owners have breached an agreement to cap at
$800 the weekly fee drivers pay owners to lease the medallions.
Many have been forced to pay as much as $200 per week more, he
said.

"The point of these rules is to make sure that a fair share of the
passenger fares goes to drivers, not just to medallion owners,"
Mr. Ackman said.

The dollar amount of gouging that goes on far exceeds the amount
in passenger overcharges uncovered by a Taxi and Limousine
Commission probe last year, he added.

Mr. Ackman says the abuses occur mostly among drivers who buy and
maintain their own cabs but lease the medallion from fleet owners.

Named as defendants were three Queens-based fleet owners -- All
Taxi Management, Queens Medallion Leasing and Woodside Management
-- as well as B. Taxi Management of Manhattan.

Fleet owners could not be reached for comment.

AMCOR: More Than 1,000 Businesses to Get Settlement Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that more than 1,000
businesses affected by alleged price fixing between cardboard
manufacturers Amcor and Visy have received an early Christmas
present, as the two companies finally come through with AUD97
million in settlement payments.

The companies reached an out-of-court settlement in March after
being targeted in a class action over alleged price fixing.

The action alleged that between January and April 2000, Amcor and
Visy entered into a cartel to fix corrugated fibreboard packaging
prices and reduce competition for each other's customers.

The first cartel arrangement spread via secondary agreements to
see some prices increased each year from 2000 to 2003 for non-
contract customers, it was alleged.

Amcor was to pay two thirds of the settlement figure and Visy the
remainder.

The law firm that filed the action, Maurice Blackburn, said on
Dec. 14 the settlement payments have been received by members of
the class action in the last week.

"Some larger businesses have received over AUD1 million and others
smaller amounts reflecting the value of their claims as assessed
by an independent economist," senior associate Richard Ryan said
in a statement.

"The group members include businesses from many industries across
Australia, including many struggling fruit and vegetable growers
who have been badly affected by floods and Cyclone Yasi in the
past year."

The lawyers are pleased to be finalizing the distribution of
compensation at a time of year when businesses most welcome some
extra money, he said.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Settles Class Action Over Tunstall Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Alert Corp. on Dec. 13 disclosed that AMAC and
other named defendants have entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with plaintiffs' counsel in connection with
the purported class action lawsuits filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Nassau and in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Queens, in connection with its
proposed merger with Tunstall Healthcare Group Limited.

As previously announced, on September 22, 2011, AMAC entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Tunstall and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Monitor Acquisition Corp.  Under the terms of the MOU,
AMAC will file a Current Report on Form 8-K supplementing certain
disclosure in the definitive proxy statement filed by AMAC with
the SEC on November 17, 2011 in connection with the merger.  The
MOU reflects the parties' agreement to resolve the allegations by
the settling plaintiffs against AMAC and other defendants in
connection with the Merger Agreement and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of AMAC's shareholders of all
claims against AMAC and other defendants and their affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger Agreement.  The MOU and
settlement are contingent upon, among other things, approval of
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, the
closing of the merger and further definitive documentation.

AMAC and the other named defendants continue to believe that each
of the lawsuits filed in connection with its proposed merger with
Tunstall are without merit.

                            About AMAC

AMAC -- http://www.amac.com-- is a healthcare communications
company dedicated to the provision of support services to the
healthcare community.  AMAC's product and service portfolio
includes Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS) and emergency
response monitoring, electronic medication reminder devices,
disease management monitoring appliances and healthcare
communication solutions services.  AMAC operates nine US-based
communication centers under local trade names: HLINK OnCall, North
Shore TAS, Live Message America, ACT Teleservice, MD OnCall,
Capitol Medical Bureau, American MediConnect, Alpha Message Center
and Phone Screen to support the delivery of high quality,
healthcare communications.


BAIN CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Samsonite Sale
----------------------------------------------------
Beth Healy, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Bain Capital, alleging fraud
and unfair practices in the sale and subsequent bankruptcy of a
Samsonite luggage factory in France.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, alleges that Bain
Capital's sale of the factory circumvented French labor laws.
Bain Capital is a Boston-based private equity firm.  The class
action involves 186 people affected by the closure of Samsonite's
Henin-Beaumont factory in France.

Bain and a group of investors sold Samsonite to CVC Capital
partners in 2007 for $1.7 billion, four years after buying the
troubled company.  Samsonite has local operations in Mansfield.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 4 and brought to the public's
attention on Dec. 13 in a press release by the plaintiffs'
attorneys.  Bain must respond to the complaint by Dec. 16.

"A number of French courts and tribunals previously reviewed these
allegations and rejected the plaintiff's claims as unfounded," a
spokesman for Bain Capital, Alex Stanton, said in a statement.
"Rather than accept these decisions, the plaintiffs are now
seeking a 'do over' in US courts.  Regardless of where this action
is filed, we believe the claims are entirely without merit and
will contest them vigorously."

Ken Solomon, the plaintiffs' Massachusetts attorney, said in a
statement that the factory shutdown caused "severe economic
hardship" for the workers.


BIG TOBACCO: Attorney-General Roxon Mulls Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Leo Shanahan, writing for The Australian, reports that incoming
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon is looking to spearhead legal action
against Big Tobacco to help the states recover the estimated
AUD31.5 billion that smoking-related disease costs the hospital
system each year.

With the former health minister already preparing for a High Court
battle with tobacco companies over plain packaging legislation,
Ms. Roxon said on Dec. 13 she would approach state governments to
"consider whether there are options" for a separate legal
challenge, with the possibility of individual suits or a class
action by states a real possibility.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2011, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, filed a lawsuit on
behalf of Plaintiff Kevin Smith in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Capital One
illegally obtains background checks in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
Capital One employees and job applicants for the past three years.
Plaintiff Smith accuses Capital One of violating the Act in a two
ways.  First, the lawsuit alleges that Capital One's authorization
form is flawed.  The law imposes strict formatting requirements on
companies who do background checks.  Mr. Smith alleges that by
burying its background check authorization in a job application,
including extraneous information, Capital One violated the law.
On this claim, Capital One may be liable to all employees and
prospective employees who signed Capital One's standard job
application.

The lawsuit also alleges that Capital One failed to provide copies
of the reports when it used them to take adverse employment
actions, such as refusing to hire an applicant, refusing to
promote an employee or terminating an employee.  This practice
also violates the Act, which requires companies to provide
employees with copies of their background checks.

Plaintiff's attorney E. Michelle Drake explains, "Consumer Reports
are notoriously inaccurate.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act exists
in part to ensure employees have a say in who can pull their
consumer reports and have an opportunity to contest any
inaccuracies that they may contain."

The lawsuit is potentially valuable to class members.  Employees
and prospective employees may be entitled to statutory damages of
up to $1,000 for each violation.  "Based on our understanding of
Capital One's practices, everyone who has applied or worked for
Capital One in the past three years should be eligible to receive
statutory damages if our lawsuit succeeds," continued Ms. Drake.

Capital One is headquartered in McLean, Virginia and does business
in Maryland and throughout the United States.  According to its
Web site, Capital One is "one of the nation's top 10 largest
banks[,]" and Maryland is one of its primary branch locations.
Plaintiffs are represented by E. Michelle Drake and Rebekah L.
Bailey from Nichols Kaster, PLLP, which has offices in
Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California, and Alane
Tempchin of Sullivan, Talbott & Batt, which has offices in
Rockville, Maryland.  The case is entitled Smith v. Capital One,
N.A., No. 1:11-cv-03504-RDB (D. Md.).  Additional information
about the case can be found at http://www.nka.com/capital-one


CITY OF GRANITE, IL: Sued Over Excessive Towing Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that six nearly
identical class actions claim Southern Illinois cities charge
unreasonable administrative fees of up to $500 for towing vehicles
of people who are arrested.

The complaints were filed in St. Clair and Madison County Courts.

The plaintiffs say they were charged $300 to $500 in
"administrative fees" upon trying to retrieve their vehicles.
City ordinances allow the fees.

Two of the class actions were filed against Fairview Heights in
St. Clair County.  The other four were filed against Alton,
Collinsville, Edwardsville and Granite City in Madison County.

All were filed by Brian Polinske of Edwardsville.

"The Level 1 Administrative Fee is not the tow fee but merely a
receipt given to the plaintiffs so they can then appear at the
towing facility which possess their automobile and then pay the
actual towing fee," the complaints state.  "Thus the Level 1
Administrative Fee is not connected or related in whole or in part
to the cost of towing, towing services or actual services
provided.

"The fees under the above ordinances have no rational basis in
accomplishing the means as stated by the ordinance.  There is no
rational justification for imposing $500.00 administrative fee
upon a motorist to merely issue that person a receipt stating they
have paid $500.00."

The class consists of all people cited and arrested for any of the
alleged violations which subject that person to the administrative
fee, including driving under the influence and driving with a
suspended license.  The plaintiffs want their money back.

A copy of the Complaint in Funkhouser v. City of Granite City,
Case No. 11-L-1307 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/Towing.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian L. Polinske, Esq.
          POLINSKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          701 North Main Street
          Granite City, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 692-6520

               - and -

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Steven L. Groves, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Ste. 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
                  sgroves@allfela.com


COOPER COMPANIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Dec. 13 disclose that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of The
Cooper Companies, Inc. between March 4, 2011 and November 15,
2011, inclusive alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The case is entitled Wallen v. The Cooper Companies,
Inc., Case No. C-11-6214-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R.
Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919
North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/cooper-companies-inc

Cooper, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and
markets healthcare products serving the vision care and women's
healthcare markets worldwide.

The Complaint asserts that Cooper and several of its key
executives violated the federal securities laws through the
issuance of materially false and misleading public statements, as
well as the failure to disclose material information, concerning
quality control issues and manufacturing process defects in its
CooperVision contact lens operations, as well as the business
prospects of the Company during the Class Period.

In late 2009, the Company moved its contact lens manufacturing
facilities from Norfolk, Virginia to new manufacturing plants in
Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom to cut costs.  Throughout the
Class Period, defendants reassured investors that the quality of
its product offerings remained high.  As a consequence of the cost
savings achieved by the move, among other things, defendants
raised Cooper's earnings guidance three times during the Class
Period.  This, in turn, caused the Company's stock price to climb
above $84 per share by September 2011.

In August 2011, the Company announced a "limited voluntary" recall
of its Avaira Toric line of contact lenses which were manufactured
in Puerto Rico.  Defendants reported that the limited recall was
caused by "a small number" of users that had complained of
"temporary hazy vision."

In October 2011, however, the United States Food and Drug
Administration issued a Class I warning, calling for the Company
to issue full notice to the public of the reasons for the recall
of nearly 780,000 of its Avaira Tonic lenses.

On November 15, 2011, the Company finally disclosed that was
expanding the recall to include nearly five million Avaira Sphere
lenses that had already shipped.  Cooper also disclosed that it
reserved more than $23 million for recall related liabilities.  As
a consequence, the price of Cooper's common stock price fell from
a closing price of $64.95 per share on November 14, 2011, the day
prior to the disclosure of the expanded recall, to a close of
$56.64 per share on November 15, 2011, the day of the announcement
on extremely heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 27, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.


FOURSTAR GROUP: Recalls 25,500 Handheld Massage Pets
----------------------------------------------------
About 25,500 Handheld Massage Pets were voluntarily recalled by
distributor/importer, Fourstar Group USA Inc., of Bedford Heights,
Ohio, and manufacturers, Dongguan City Liwang Battery Co., Ltd.
(battery), and Dongguan City Qingxi Shangpin Electrical Working
Shop (massager), of China, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The massager's batteries can leak, posing a burn hazard or skin
irritation to consumers.

The firm has received reports from five stores of the batteries in
massagers leaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves ladybug and bee-shaped "Massage Pet" handheld
massagers.  The ladybugs are red and black and the bees are yellow
and black.  The massagers measure 3 1/2 inches tall and 5 inches
wide and were sold with two Kendal brand AA batteries.  "Massage
Pets" and "Dating code 1210A" are printed on the massager's
hangtag along with UPC 0 49696 60453 6 for the ladybug and UPC 0
49696 60454 3 for the bee.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12707.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at BJ's Wholesale Clubs from September 2011 through
December 2011 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled massagers and
return them to any BJ's Wholesale Club for a full refund.  The
firm is directly contacting consumers who purchased this product.
The firm advises consumers not to touch the batteries or open the
battery compartment.  For more information, contact Fourstar Group
at (866) 290-6191 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.fsgrecall.com/massagepets.html/


FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Inmates File Health Care Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Lopez and Barbara Anderson, writing for The Fresno Bee,
report that inmates in the Fresno County Jail live in dangerous
conditions and aren't getting basic health care, according to a
federal lawsuit filed on Dec. 13 in Fresno.

Four inmates filed the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court, claiming Sheriff Margaret Mims, who oversees jail
operations, has violated their constitutional rights -- and those
of inmates -- by subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishment.

According to the lawsuit, inmates are regularly denied treatment
for life-threatening illnesses, severe mental health symptoms, and
serious dental conditions.  Inmates also have been subjected to
violence because of defects in the jail's design, operation and
staffing, the lawsuit says.

As an example, the lawsuit cites an incident in which one of the
four plaintiffs, Bob Merryman, 57, was slashed in the face with a
razor by another prisoner who was suffering from acute and
untreated psychosis.  Jail staff failed to protect Mr. Merryman,
who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and is too weak to
defend himself, the lawsuit says.

The inmates are seeking a court order requiring the sheriff to
provide basic health care and protection for prisoners from
violence from other prisoners.

"Most detainees in the jail are awaiting trial and have not been
convicted of any crimes.  They are dependent on the jail for all
their medical needs," said Kelly Knapp, an attorney at the Prison
Law Office, which, along with others, filed the lawsuit on behalf
of the Fresno inmates.  "To leave them in pain, at risk of life-
threatening injury and permanent disability, is simply inhumane."

An advocacy group called Disability Rights California says Fresno
County should look for alternatives to incarceration.

"Counties such as Fresno have a simple choice: Increase spending
on jail services or develop cost-effective community programs to
divert prisoners with mental illness or drug dependence out of the
jail and into programs of close supervision where they will pose
no public safety risk," said Melinda Bird, senior counsel at
Disability Rights California.


GOOGLE: Authors Guild Seek Certification of Digitization Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Boog, writing for Galleycat, reports that with hopes for a
Google Books settlement dashed, the Authors Guild has filed for
class certification in the Google Books litigation, claiming that
authors are "passive victims of Google's digitization campaign."

If certified, the class action lawsuit will seek statutory damages
on behalf of the authors who wrote the millions of books scanned
into Google's digital library.  According to Publishers Weekly,
Google's lawyers need to respond to the filing in January.

Here's more from the Authors Guild's filing: "Google's stated goal
has been to copy all of the world's printed offline books, and
Google has acted to accomplish that goal by copying all types of
printed offline materials, including books, journals, and
dissertations, without authorization from the copyright owners.
Google has copied all types of books, whether in-copyright or out-
of-copyright, fiction or non-fiction.  Copyright owners are merely
the passive victims of Google's digitization campaign.  Google's
unilateral actions constitute copyright infringement, entitling
Google's victims to statutory damages . . .  as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief."


HCA HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say they took a
hit because HCA Holdings improperly accounted for billions of
dollars in acquisitions, and when it became known the stock lost
38% of its value since its March Initial Public Offering.

A copy of the Complaint in Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01170 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George E. Barrett, Esq.
          Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
          217 Second Avenue, North
          Nashville, TN 37201-1601
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com
                  djohnston@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058


HTC INC: Sued for Intercepting Private Electronic Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a recently filed class action accuses HTC of unlawfully
intercepting private electronic communications from private mobile
phones, handsets and smart phones.

Claiming violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, Joseph Cosme,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
suit against Carrier IQ Inc., HTC Inc. and HTC America Inc. on
Dec. 5 in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division.

He is seeking more than $5 million in statutory and punitive
damages, plus interest, attorney's fees and court costs.

According to the complaint, defendant Carrier IQ is a provider for
mobile services intelligence solutions to the wireless industry
and uses embedded diagnostic software to capture and record
keystrokes on mobile devices.  The software is embedded in HTC
Android phones, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Cosme owns an HTC Android phone using the AT&T network.  He
states that he used his phone to send various types of private
data, which was not readily accessible to the general public.  The
defendants are accused of monitoring and collecting this data
without Mr. Cosme's permission.

The defendants are accused of violating the Federal Wiretap Act.

The proposed class action will include all U.S. residents who
operate a cellular phone manufactured by HTC and from which
Carrier IQ collected electronic communications.

Mr. Cosme is represented by Eric D. Holland II of Holland, Groves,
Schneller & Stolze in St. Louis, Mo.

U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the case.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00689


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
JPMorgan customers claims the bank and its affiliate Cross Country
Insurance took millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks and "an
unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums paid by
JPMorgan's customers" to private mortgage insurers.

The five named purchasers of residential loans and private
mortgage insurance claim JPMorgan spun a "captive reinsurance
scheme," in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA).

"Captive reinsurance schemes such as that involving defendants is
widespread throughout the mortgage lending marketplace.  As
American Banker magazine recently reported in connection with an
investigation by the Inspector General of the Department Housing
and Urban Development ('HUD'), 'beginning in the late 1990s major
U.S. banks began coercing [private mortgage] insurers into cutting
them in on what would ultimately amount to $6 billion of insurance
premiums in exchange for assuming little or no risk,'" the federal
complaint states.

"This was accomplished through a secretive 'pay-to-play scheme,'
that utilized carefully crafted excess-of-loss or 'purported'
quota-share reinsurance contracts that minimized risk exposure to
bands of losses unlikely to be pierced.  Further . . . even with
regard to the purported band of exposure, certain lenders,
including JPMorgan, insulated themselves from providing any real
reinsurance by: (a) making their captive reinsurance arrangements
'self-capitalizing,' in that they were required to put only
'nominal initial capital' into the trusts supporting the
reinsurance contracts and (b) providing no recourse for the
failure to adequately fund the trusts," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say the arrangement was a safe bet for JPMorgan,
which had "no risk of meaningful losses."

"The hundreds of millions of dollars paid by the defendant private
mortgage insurers and collected by JPMorgan through its captive
reinsurer have clearly not been commensurate to its actual risk
exposure.  The defendant private mortgage insurers have paid, and
JPMorgan has received, hundreds of millions of dollars in ceded
premiums, while JPMorgan has borne little or no risk of loss.

"In reality, defendants' captive reinsurance arrangements were and
are sham transactions providing for the transfer of kickbacks and
unearned fees in violation of RESPA.

"The money JPMorgan collected from the defendant private mortgage
insurers through Cross Country far exceeded the value of the
services, if any, it performed," the complaint states.

Private mortgage insurance, which protects a lender from default,
is typically chosen by the bank itself.

The JPMorgan customers say that under RESPA lenders and their
affiliates cannot accept kickbacks, referral fees or an unearned
fee split from private mortgage insurers.

To skirt the law, each private mortgage insurer paid a share of
"borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums to Cross Country
in the form of purported 'reinsurance' premiums," according to the
class.

"While these payments to Cross Country are purportedly for
'reinsurance' services, Cross Country receives these payments
while assuming very little or no actual risk under its contracts
with the private mortgage insurers.  From the beginning of 2004
through the end of 2008, Cross Country collected from private
mortgage insurers at least $428 million as its 'share' of
borrower's private mortgage insurance premiums.  In contrast,
Cross Country's 'share' of paid claims during this time period was
only approximately $7 million," the complaint states.

The JPMorgan customers are represented by Daniel Germain of Encino
and seek statutory damages and/or restitution for unjust
enrichment.

Mr. Germain did not immediately reply to an e-mailed request for
an interview.

JPMorgan responded without comment.

JPMorgan and Cross Country allegedly did business with named co-
defendants United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co., PMI Mortgage
Insurance Co., Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp., Genworth
Mortgage Insurance Corp., Republic Mortgage Insurance Co., Radian
Guaranty Inc. and Triad Guaranty Insurance Corp.

A copy of the Complaint in Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., Case No. 11-cv-01950 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/MorganKickback.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Telephone: (818) 788-0877
               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Michelle A. Coccagna, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

               - and -

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Boulevard, Ste. 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: APlutzik@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          Andrew L. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
          420 Frazier Avenue
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266-5171


KOHLER CO: Wage Suit Obtains Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
Rich Rovito, writing for The Business Journal, reports that
Federal Magistrate Judge William Callahan Jr. of the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on Dec. 13 certified an employee's wage
complaint against Kohler Co. as a class action.

There are potentially about 140 employees in the newly certified
class action case against Kohler, which is now headed to trial,
according to Nola Hitchcock Cross, an attorney for the plaintiffs
in the case.

The class action certification is a "huge victory" for Kohler
administrative employees -- who allege that they have not been
properly paid for all hours they worked -- because additional
employees can now join the litigation to obtain unpaid wages
without having to file individual claims, said Ms. Cross, managing
partner at Cross Law Firm S.C., Milwaukee.

The firm is representing Jennifer Vang, a former Kohler
administrative employee, who brought the action.

The complaint alleges that Kohler permitted administrative
employees to work "off-the-clock" to finish assigned work without
being paid.  Larry Johnson, another of Ms. Vang's attorneys,
claimed that "just because Kohler has a policy disallowing
overtime does not negate the company's obligation to pay its
employees for work they perform to complete their assigned
duties."

The Kohler employees are alleged to have completed their
assignments before or after their assigned shifts and/or during
their unpaid lunch breaks.

Judge Callahan ruled that the employees "need only demonstrate
that they worked uncompensated overtime on the employer's premises
to create a presumption that the employer knew or should have
known about the additional work time," Ms. Cross said.

In an unpaid wage case, class certification is particularly
important to extend coverage to the larger group because employees
often fear retaliation and are hesitant to pursue their statutory
legal rights, she added.

"Fear of job loss is a powerful deterrent and this is particularly
true during a recession," Ms. Cross said.  "The umbrella of the
class action makes people more comfortable."

Pursuant to the court's order, each current or former
administrative employee will receive notice of the suit and be
provided the option to opt out of the suit, Mr. Johnson said.

Kohler management didn't immediately return a call seeking
comment.

The Kohler-based company is a manufacturer of kitchen and bath
products, engines and power generation systems, cabinetry, tile
and home interiors, and an operator of high-end hospitality
properties and golf courses.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Sued Over Unpaid Licensing Royalties
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
retired NFL players wants the NFL Players Association to pay $5
million in damages for unpaid licensing royalties.

In their federal complaint, named plaintiffs Ronald Brown, Charles
Detwiler and Dwight Hicks say they were improperly excluded from a
settlement in Adderley et al. vs. NFLPA, brought in 2007 by a
class of more than 2,000 retired NFL players who had signed a
group licensing authorization (GLA) form with the players union.

"The plaintiffs in this case were excluded from the settlement in
the Adderley Action on the grounds that they did not have and/or
did not produce a signed GLA with the class certified language or
were not listed on the formal certified class list.  However,
regardless of the settlement in the Adderley Action, according to
the testimony of an officer of NFLPA and NFL Players, a GLA is not
a prerequisite for participation in defendants' group licensing
program.

"Moreover, within the last four years plaintiffs and the class
have been wrongfully denied licensing royalties in connection with
licensing opportunities entered into between defendants and third
parties.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to them and the class in connection with
licensing their names, likenesses, pictures, photographs, voices,
facsimile signatures and/or biographical information . . . to
third parties and/or failing to market and license their names and
likenesses as obligated to do," the complaint states.

The class claims that despite the Adderley settlement and efforts
to solicit retired players into the group licensing program, the
NFLPA "continues to fail to make any effort to market retired
players."

The players say the NFLPA received more than $200 million in
revenue from lucrative agreements with NFL sponsors and third
parties, including Electronic Arts, maker of the popular Madden
video game.  Other licensed products include trading cards, TV and
radio shows and personal appearances.

"These funds have purportedly been placed into a common fund for
distribution to NFLPA members.  However, plaintiffs and the class
have yet to receive any remuneration from defendants from those
funds," the complaint states.

The players add: "Defendants owed plaintiffs and each represented
NFLPA member a fiduciary duty to act in a fair and equitable
manner consistent with the best interests of the retired players.
Instead, defendants have acted in an arbitrary, capricious and
inequitable manner, contrary to their fiduciary obligations, in
order to line their own coffers."

The players seek an accounting, and punitive damages for breach of
fiduciary duty.

The National Football League Players Inc. dba NFL Players is also
named as a defendant.

Neither the plaintiffs' law firm nor the NFLPA responded to
requests for comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Brown, et al. v. National Football
League Players Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01953 (C.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/NFLAdd.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
          Howard K. Alperin, Esq.
          T. Giovanni ("John") Arbucci, Esq.
          Alyson C. Decker, Esq.
          BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  mmarzano@blechercollins.com
                  halperin@blechercollins.com
                  jarbucci@blechercollins.com
                  adecker@blechercollins.com


ORACLE CORP: 9th Circuit Revives Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court on Dec. 13 revived a class-action lawsuit against Oracle
Corp., basing its ruling on a state court decision that employers
in California must pay nonresident workers for overtime work
performed in the state.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed a federal
district court ruling in favor of Oracle.  Under the California's
wage and hour laws, the appellate court found, Oracle could be
liable for unpaid wages if it did not compensate out-of-state
computer trainers for overtime work performed in the state.

Oracle employees who were residents of Arizona and Colorado had
sued the company for not paying them overtime for work performed
in California.  The trial judge granted summary judgment in
Oracle's favor.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to provide guidance on
whether the California labor code applies to nonresident employees
when they perform work in the state.  In June, the California high
court ruled that it did, finding that not applying California law
would encourage employers to substitute lower-paid temporary
employees from other states for California employees.

"The 9th Circuit agreed with the Supreme Court's common sense
analysis: If you're a business in California, you will have to
comply with California's overtime laws.  You can't treat people
differently because they live in a different state," said Charles
Russell, a lawyer for the employees.

Employment lawyers and business groups argued the ruling would
drive business away from California, reduce business travel and
lead to a spike in wage-and-hour lawsuits against companies doing
business in the state.  Such fears have not materialized, Mr.
Russell said.

Oracle lawyer Stephen Berry did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

While reviving the bulk of the employees' claims, the 9th Circuit
rejected their argument that California laws should apply to
overtime work performed outside of California under the facts of
the case.

The 9th Circuit sent the case back down to the district court for
further proceedings.


ROGERS: Offers Free Long-Distance Calls to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dobby, writing for Financial Post, reports that Rogers'
home phone customers may want to pencil in next Canada Day for
cross-country catch-up conversations.

Under the terms of a class action settlement approved by an
Ontario judge last week, for 48 hours next July 1 and 2, 2012, the
communications company will give all of its then-current long-
distance subscribers unlimited calling across Canada free of
charge.

Rogers is providing the two "call days," along with a C$100,000
charitable donation (a cy-pres payment to the Law Foundation of
Ontario), to settle a claim that the company misrepresented its
long-distance charges for landline users.  Rogers does not admit
the allegations but agreed to settle.

Members of the class complained that Rogers stated customers would
be charged on a "per minute" basis but failed to mention that it
rounds up the time used for fractions of a minute.  The company
now discloses that practice, the court noted.

The plaintiffs claimed the billing practice violated the Consumer
Protection Act and that Rogers was unjustly enriched at the
expense of class members.

Reva Wein, the representative plaintiff for the class, started the
lawsuit in August 2008.  Toronto law firm Juroviesky LLP
represented the plaintiffs and will receive $100,000 for its fees
from Rogers.

In approving the settlement, Judge Carolyn Horkins of the Superior
Court of Justice in Toronto called it "creative and fair."

She wrote in her Dec. 8 decision that the value of the call days
will depend on how many people take advantage of the offer and how
much time they spend on the phone.

If customers each spend two hours chatting long-distance, the
total retail value of the calls could come in around $14.4-
million, the judge noted.

A word of warning before your rack up a hefty phone bill: the call
days will not apply to wireless devices or international calls.


SANOFI PASTEUR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Vaccine Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
antitrust class action, a doctor says Sanofi Pasteur, the world's
largest producer of vaccines, uses its monopoly on meningococcal
vaccines in the United States to raise prices and crush
competition.

Sanofi has "an overwhelming 93 percent market share" of the
meningococcal vaccine market in the United States, according to
named plaintiff Dr. Adriana Castro.  She says the company
maintains its monopoly through exclusionary contracts with
"multiple physician buying groups," that enforce stiff penalties
if a hospital or physician tries to buy any pediatric vaccine, no
matter the amount, from a Sanofi competitor.

According to the complaint, Sanofi, a subsidiary of Sanofi-
Aventis, is one of four major firms that provide pediatric
vaccines in the United States, and until February 2010 was the
only firm selling a meningococcal vaccine, Menactra.  The vaccine
protects against bacterial meningitis.

When a competitor, Novartis, introduced a meningococcal vaccine,
Menveo, in February 2010, Sanofi "redoubled its efforts to enforce
its anticompetitive PBG (Physician Buying Group) contracts,"
according to the complaint.

Dr. Castro says that a "vast majority of family practices,
pediatricians and other independent medical practices in the U.S.
are members of a PBG," which performs an abundance of services for
their members, "including coordinating and aggregating member
purchase of vaccines and other health-care supplies through group
purchasing contracts with major vaccine manufacturers and medical
supply distributors."

She says that to purchase products and vaccines, participating
providers must enter into contracts with a Physician Buying Group.

"In or before 2010, in part response to Novartis's release of
Menveo in February 2010, Sanofi intentionally altered many of its
bundled pricing contracts by increasing the pediatric vaccine
purchasing requirements to 100 percent for all or most of Sanofi's
vaccines.  Under the new Sanofi-PBG contracts, if a purchaser buys
any vaccines from a Sanofi competitor then that purchaser faces a
stiff penalty on all vaccines in the Sanofi bundle," the class
claims.

"Sanofi has actively worked with PBGs to identify and punish
noncompliant physician and hospital purchasers.  Each year,
physician practice and hospital purchasers are required to
demonstrate compliance with Sanofi's purchaser level requirements.
To do so, the physician or hospital purchaser must provide all of
its vaccine purchasing records to the PBG for auditing.  If a
physician practice or hospital purchaser is noncompliant then it
must pay substantial penalties on all Sanofi vaccines and/or be
removed from the contract entirely.  Once removed from the PBG
contract, the physician practice or hospital would be forced to
pay Sanofi penalty prices on all Sanofi vaccines, including
Sanofi's Hib vaccines Pentacel and ActHIB for which there are no
reasonably adequate medical substitutes."

According to the complaint, due to the strict price penalties and
because Novartis does not produce any vaccines besides Menveo,
"there is no way that Novartis can compensate a physician practice
to make up for Sanofi's price penalties on these other products."

In fact, despite being labeled by many physicians as "medically
superior to Menactra . . . Novartis would have to sell its
pediatric vaccines below cost or even pay customers to use
Menveo," the complaint states.

Dr. Castro adds: "Sanofi dominates U.S. sales in the markets for
multiple pediatric vaccines, including, e.g.: (a) DTaP (inoculates
against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), (b) Tdap (a stand-
alone booster inoculation for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis),
(c) IPV (inoculates against poliovirus), and Hib (inoculates
against haemophilus influenzae type b).  Sanofi's brand-name
Pentacel combination vaccine (combining the DTaP, IPV, and Hib
vaccines) is the number one combination pediatric vaccine in the
U.S. Sanofi is the world's largest producer of vaccines and a
leading producer of vaccines in the U.S."

She seeks class damages for antitrust violations and treble
damages for being overcharged.

A copy of the Complaint in Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Case No.
11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 13582 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
Dec. 9, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/Vaccine.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: 201-845-9600
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Daniel C. Simons, Esq.
          Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          John D. Radice, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8504

               - and -

          Kenneth Zylstra, Esq.
          Stephen Connolly, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770

               - and -

          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA P. DAVIS
          59 Montford Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94931
          Telephone: (415) 422-6223

               - and -

          Barry S. Taus, Esq.
          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          TAUS CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
                 bcebulash@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          David Balto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO
          1350 I Street Suite 850
          Washington DC, 20005
          Telephone: (202) 789-5424


SUZE ORMAN: Sued in Missouri Over Legal Document Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the
Suze Orman Media Web site illegally charges for preparation of
legal documents.

A copy of the Complaint in Clair v. Suze Orman Media, Inc., Case
No. 11SL-CC04869 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/Suze.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          James J. Simeri, Esq.
          BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
          231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          E-mail: butsch@bslawfirm.com
                  simeri@bslawfirm.com


TICKETMASTER: Proposes Shipping Charge Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hetrick, writing for Playbill, reports that individuals who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster over the past decade
received encouraging news this week when the corporation announced
a credit for customers following a class action suit filed in
California.

Plaintiffs filed the suit alleging deceptive and excessive order
processing fees as well as over-priced charges for UPS shipping
(in which Ticketmaster made a profit).

Ticketmaster, which denies the allegations, is offering a proposed
settlement of a $1.50 credit (for up to 17 tickets per individual)
to customers who purchased tickets through the service from
Oct. 21, 1999-Oct. 19, 2011.  In addition, the subclass affected
by the expedited UPS shipping charges will be eligible for a $5
UPS code credit for up to 17 transactions.

Customers will be able to apply the credit on future purchases
through Ticketmaster.  Those who used Ticketmaster over the ten-
year period began receiving the e-mails in recent days.

On May 29, 2012, a Los Angeles court will decide whether to
approve the proposed settlement.  The Web site
Ticketfeelitigation.com has been set up to keep those involved
informed on the progress of the case.


TOYS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 50 Baby Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Toys Distribution Inc., of Los Angeles, California,
and manufacturer, Winning Key (WK) Manufacturing and Topwin Toys
(HK), of China, announced a voluntary recall of about 50 Baby
Rattles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled rattles can break into small parts, posing a choking
hazard to young children and violating the federal safety
requirements for rattles.  In addition, the size of the handle on
some of the rattles is small enough to enter an infant's mouth,
lodge in the throat and cause a choking hazard or lead to bruises
and lacerations.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall includes plastic rattles sold in various pastel colors
and shapes, including a toy phone, animal, small buggy and sea
horse.  The rattles were sold in sets of five or eight rattles per
box.  "HANDBELL TOYS" is printed in the upper left corner of the
package.  "MADE IN CHINA" is printed on the bottom of the package.
One set has "JUNYI" printed on the front upper right corner of the
package and "ITEM NO. 58083801" printed on the back lower corner
on a white sticker.  Another set has "XIN DA MEI" printed on the
front upper right corner of the package and "ITEM NO. 308363"
printed on the back lower corner on a white sticker.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12055.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at small
toy stores in Colorado and Texas from December 2009 through
December 2010 for about $2.

Consumers should take the recalled rattles away from children
immediately and return them to the place of purchase or contact
Toys Distribution Inc. to receive a full refund or replacement
product.  For additional information, contact Toys Distribution
Inc. collect at (323) 266-8088 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday.  Consumers can also e-mail the
firm at mailbox@shoptdi.com


WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TN: Sued for Violating Immigration Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
five people say Williamson County law enforcement has illegally
arrested and imprisoned, under high bond or no bond, at least 16
people on suspicion of being in the United States illegally, which
is a civil, not a criminal, violation.

A copy of the Complaint in Rios-Quiroz, et al. v. Williamson
County, Tennessee, Case No. 11-cv-01168 (M.D. Tenn.) (Campbell,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/13/Immig.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elliott Ozment, Esq.
          R. Andrew Free, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT OZMENT
          1214 Murfreesboro Pike
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Telephone: (615) 321-8888
          E-mail: elliott@ozmentlaw.com


* Two Class Action Lawyers Oppose No Contest Settlements Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Shecter, writing for Financial Post, reports that two
class action lawyers from Siskinds LLP have filed a submission
with the Ontario Securities Commission explaining why they oppose
the regulator's proposal to adopt a policy of 'no contest'
settlements.

A pair of lawyers from one of Canada's most active class action
law firms say they weren't part of consultations undertaken by the
OSC before the regulator proposed adopting controversial "no-
contest" settlements.

"That investor counsel were not consulted should not be
surprising, because in our view, there would be near universal
criticism of the no-contest settlement proposal," Douglas Worndl
and Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds LLP say in a submission opposing
the settlements that require no admission of wrongdoing.

Canada's largest capital markets regulator proposed adopting no-
contest settlements in October after years of requiring that all
settlements contain admissions of fact.  The OSC now says no-
contest settlements would speed up and intensify enforcement
efforts and preserve limited regulatory resources.

The regulator is accepting submissions supporting and opposing the
adoption of no-contest settlements until Dec. 20.  Lawyers who
traditionally represent corporate defendants and investor
plaintiffs have been filing comments with the regulator.  In their
submission, Mr. Worndl and Mr. Lascaris, who represent plaintiffs,
write:

"Quite simply, the proposal is not in the interest of investors
who have been harmed by the wrongful conduct of respondents to OSC
Enforcement proceedings."

"In our respectful submission, no-contest settlements are bad
public policy and reflect a troubling inclination to favor the
interests of issuers and their directors and officers over those
of investors."

No-contest settlements have been used by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for some time, even in recent years during
which there has been "a breathtaking lack of accountability" for
the financial crisis of 2008, the lawyers argue in their 30-page
submission, noting a recent backlash particular in the courtroom
of U.S. federal Judge Jed Rakoff.

They argue that no-contest settlements fall short because the
investing public never knows whether a sanction represents "a
sweetheart deal for a wrongdoer who may have some unknown
influence over the process" or "whether the sanction is
disproportionately harsh to a wrongdoer who may be unrepresented
or whose counsel is not adequately representing his interests."

What's more, the lawyers say, the nature of a no-contest
settlement -- in which "wrongdoers are not held to account, and
the process is entirely lacking in transparency" -- is contrary to
the OSC's guiding forces of investor protection and capital
markets integrity.

Mr. Worndl and Mr. Lascaris say defense lawyers who argue that
settlements are hard to come by because admissions can be used in
other civil proceedings such as class action lawsuits make a
"circular" argument concerning the amount of time and other
regulatory resources required of OSC staff under the current
system.

"What they are saying, in effect, is that their clients do not
like to have to make admissions of their wrongdoing; therefore, on
their clients' behalf they resist doing so, and that process takes
a lot of time and Commission Staff resources," the Siskinds
submission says.  "That waste of time, they say, can be eliminated
by simply giving them and their clients what they want, namely a
quick settlement without their clients having to make any
admissions of their wrongdoing."

While the OSC plans to limit the use of no-contest settlements if
they are adopted, the Siskinds lawyers warn of a "slippery slope"
that could see the most "egregious and dangerous" violators of
securities law offered the settlement option to quickly remove
them from the capital markets.

"In our view, this logic is perverse as the proposal creates a
moral hazard -- rewarding those who are the most culpable with a
no-contest settlement which allows them to avoid accountability,"
Mr. Worndl and Mr. Lascaris say.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolseley to Sue Supplier for Mislabeled Gaskets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gill Plimmer and Adam Jones for The Financial Times report that
shares in Wolseley Plc rose sharply on Dec. 1 as the plumbing and
heating supplier said improving sales in North America had offset
weakness in Europe, even as it warned that it may have
inadvertently sold asbestos gaskets to some customers in the US
and Canada.

Although the shares rose to GBP19.72, Wolseley, which has shifted
its tax base to Switzerland, warned that the weak economy would
take an inevitable toll on the industry.

Andy Brown, analyst at Panmure Gordon, said: "Its US operations
are doing well while European performance is mixed.  The trading
outlook is expected to get tougher, which keeps a lid on forecast
changes.  It has identified a mislabeled product issue, containing
asbestos, which will hang over the share price."

The FTSE 100 company, which was badly hit during the recession,
said that trading profits in the first quarter of its financial
year to Oct. 31 rose 16% to GBP185 million, and like-for-like
revenue growth increased 5 per cent.

In the US, which accounts for nearly 40% of earnings, sales rose
10% offsetting a 3% slide in UK sales.  UK profits were down 20%
to GBP24 million, although half of the shortfall was down to
disposals such as Build Center, sold to French giant Saint-Gobain
in July.

Wolseley said four customers in the US and Canada had found that
supposedly asbestos-free gaskets -- used as plumbing seals -- had
actually contained substantially more than 1% asbestos -- the
threshold at which the products are supposed to be labeled as
containing the material.

The parts, which cost $3-$4 each, had been mislabeled as non-
asbestos gaskets by a former supplier in Canada called Lortech
Rubber Inc.  The Company said it bought 1.2 million gaskets from
them between 2006 and 2009 but had not been able to determine how
many of these were affected.  Ian Meakin, chief executive, said
Wolseley would sue the supplier, adding that a small number of
customers might also sue Wolseley, though it has not made any
provision in its accounts.  Lortech Rubber declined to comment.

Asbestos contains fibers that can cause serious diseases such as
mesothelioma when inhaled.  However, Wolseley said the asbestos
gaskets were safe and could be sold legally in the US and Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolseley Awaits Effects of Product Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center posted that after purchasing products from
a European manufacturer, some American companies may have
unknowingly put their employees and customers at risk of asbestos
exposure.

A recent news story reports that Wolseley, a European heating and
plumbing products company, sold gaskets to American companies that
were mislabeled as "non-asbestos-containing" when in fact they did
contain asbestos.

The products were found to have significantly more than 1%
asbestos in them, which is more than the safety threshold allowed
by law.  Because exposure to asbestos has been linked to various
cancers and diseases, this news may prove disconcerting to those
who are handlers or end-users of these tainted products.

One such cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure is malignant
mesothelioma, which claims the lives of 2,000 to 3,000 people per
year.

No cure exists for this disease and average life expectance after
diagnosis is between four and 18 months.

According to the company's quarterly report, "independent expert
advisers have conducted tests and consulted published scientific
studies to confirm that no health or safety risk arises from the
handling, installation and use of the gaskets."

Exposure to asbestos-containing products becomes dangerous once
the product is disturbed and the toxic asbestos fibers become
airborne, where they can be inhaled or ingested.  As long as the
products are not damaged or disturbed in a way that causes the
asbestos fibers to be released, they should remain safe.

The news of this mislabeling error comes days after the company's
shares rose sharply on better than expected North American sales
numbers.  Revenue in the United States accounts for nearly 40% of
Wolseley's total earnings.  Listed at $3 to $4 each, these
asbestos-tainted gaskets used as plumbing seals were originally
manufactured by Canadian supplier Lortech Rubber, which were then
purchased by Wolseley between 2006 and 2009.

Chief executive of Wolseley, Ian Meakin, said that the company
will sue the supplier, and also noting that they might be sued by
their own customers.  Lawsuits will likely arise as more
information is discovered and disclosed.

The names of the American companies that purchased these
potentially dangerous supplies were not released.  Wolseley has
been in communication with them about this issue since asbestos
was first discovered.

The company's integration into the American construction, plumbing
and heating sectors is deep.  Its brands include some well known
American companies, such as Ferguson, Build.com, Cal-Steam, Stock
Market and others.  Asbestos has been historically known to be
contained within the products of these industries.

The affect of this issue on the company's stock price is still
unknown.  Some who follow Wolseley's stock speculate on where the
revelation of asbestos-tainted products will leave the price.

"Its U.S. operations are doing well while European performance is
mixed.  The trading outlook is expected to get tougher, which
keeps a lid on forecast changes.  It has identified a mislabeled
product issue, containing asbestos, which will hang over the share
price," said Andy Brown, analyst at an investment banking firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contamination Delays Glenside Site Redevelopment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The ABC News reports that an asbestos problem will delay
redevelopment work at the Glenside site in Adelaide (South
Australia), with 152 concrete piles encased in asbestos found.

South Australian Health Minister John Hill says the 12-meter piles
have been found during demolition work and are buried 10 meters
into the ground.

Mr. Hill says SafeWork SA is helping with efforts to determine
whether the piles should be removed, or whether the tops can be
cut off and covered with concrete.

"If we are to excavate and have to remove all of the (piles) the
estimate is it would cost about $7 million and would add about
eight weeks to the project's completion," he said.

"If we do the other way that'd add about $1.6 million and add
about six weeks, but we think the sensible way would be to just
leave the bulk of the material there and cover it over.

"If you started pulling it up you'd have to dig out all around it,
so excavate the site.  That would then expose workers and the
general neighborhood to any bits of it that might break off and
fly away."

Mr. Hill says the piles were used in construction work back in the
1970s at the site, in Adelaide's eastern suburbs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Costs Halt "Haunted" Landmark Redo
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports, in a rough economy with money
scarce, the high cost of asbestos abatement continues to halt the
renovation projects of many potentially useful and historic old
buildings.  Asbestos regulations don't come cheaply.

The century-old Bowen Building in Bartonville, Illinois, is a
former Peoria State Mental Hospital and is merely the latest
example, expected now to sit empty or be demolished after its
latest owner balked at the $200,000 price tag for asbestos
removal.

The building has been uninhabited since 2008, although the city
had hoped it could be renovated and transformed it into a thriving
tourist attraction.

Built in 1896, the building had been known as the Illinois Asylum
for the Incurable Insane, housing a storied history that included
murders, hangings and a wide variety of colorful characters.
Since being closed by the state 40 years ago, it has attracted
gawkers from around the world, lured by rumors of paranormal
activity and a haunted past.

Like most construction of its era, residential and commercial, it
originally was built with large amounts of asbestos, which once
was considered a valued commodity for its insulating properties.
Asbestos has been proven now to cause a variety of health
problems, including mesothelioma and asbestosis.

Its removal has become required by the EPA before a renovation
project can begin.

"We're kind of back to square one now," part-owner/investor
Richard Weiss told the Peoria Journal Star newspaper after
informing the (Bartonville) village board of trustees that the
renovation plan had been abandoned because of the cost.

The city of Bartonville already spent $350,000 to remove asbestos
from an old steam factory before it could be demolished nearby,
according to the newspaper.

Just last month, the Police Activities League in Salinas,
California abandoned its plans to convert an old Armory Hall
(built in 1936) into an indoor sports and athletic facility for
local children.  After spending $150,000 for asbestos abatement,
the PAL had no money left to renovate.

In Suffolk, Virginia, the school district there is struggling
under regulations that require asbestos containment in nine
schools.  The city is giving the school district just $75,000
every two years to help cover the cost, but it isn't enough.

The potential costs of asbestos removal today are commonly
factored into the sale of older buildings around the country,
particularly if renovations are needed.

The Bowen Building in Bartonville was closed by the Illinois EPA
and the Department of Public Health three years ago.  According to
the newspaper report, Weiss and a partner bought it with no money
down and with no payments required until 2018, believing it could
be a thriving tourist attraction long before then.

Even with its doors closed, there have been camp-outs, guided
tours and Halloween-type events on the grounds outside that
attracted hundreds of people.  Mr. Weiss said that the Travel
Channel's Ghost Adventures wants to do a show on the Building.

"I get calls every day for requests to get in, and I can't even
get in," Mr. Weiss said.  "We're not even allowed inside the
building, except to secure the area if someone breaks in.  We need
an investor to get it abated."

Removing asbestos, from a home or commercial building can be a
complicated task, and it usually is better left to an expert.  It
can be found in roofing and floor tiles, popcorn ceilings, walls,
ductwork and insulation.  It becomes especially dangerous when it
begins to fray, tear or crumble.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Abatement Costs Blamed for Illegal Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Lewis at Knox Leader reports that asbestos is being dumped
illegally once a month in Knox (Vic., Australia), with the rise in
home renovations and tip costs blamed.

Knox Council's health department has records of 12 illegal
dumpings of asbestos in the last year to Oct. 26.

Community services director Kerry Stubbings said dumpings occurred
in "various parts of Knox, including in bushland, car parks and
waterways" but would not name specific sites.

Ms. Stubbings said people sometimes chose to illegally dump
asbestos because of high fees associated with removal.  "As
renovations and development in Knox has increased in recent years,
so has the frequency of illegal dumping of asbestos," Ms.
Stubbings said.

Melbourne Asbestos Removal owner Martin Campi agreed, saying tip
costs had risen 400% over the past five years.  "It could be that
more people are doing renovations, but it's more likely that it's
unscrupulous builders and asbestos removalists (dumping)," he
said.

Mr. Campi said it was also getting harder to dispose of asbestos
waste because many tips did not accept it any more.

Ms. Stubbings said the council responded to asbestos-related
incidents by removing the hazard.

Asbestos can be harmful to people if fibers are inhaled, but is
not a health risk if it is in good condition and painted or
sealed.

Environment Protection Authority spokeswoman Ruth Ward said the
EPA's strike force followed up reports of illegal dumping of
industrial waste.

In 2010-11 it issued about 50 notices for illegal dumping, with
many prosecutions pending against "large-scale industrial
dumpers".

There are fines of up to $250,000 for companies caught dumping
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Granted for Advocate Mines
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Tremoglie at Legal Newsline reports that U.S. District
Judge Eduardo Robreno granted summary judgment on Dec. 1, for the
defendant in a case transferred from California as part the
asbestos multidistrict litigation in Pennsylvania's eastern
district.

The summary judgment was granted for the defendant, Advocate
Mines, Ltd., in the case because the plaintiffs were unable to
present evidence of product identification.  The plaintiffs' only
product identification witness did not succeed in identifying the
defendant at all.

The case had been transferred to the eastern district from the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California in December 2009.  The plaintiff's attorneys argued
that California law should have been applicable in this case.  The
court ruled that Maritime Law should apply since the case involved
a U.S. Navy worker.

The court ruled that a mere "minimal exposure" to a defendant's
product is insufficient to establish causation.

It cited case law that said, "Likewise, a mere showing that
defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiff's place of
work is insufficient."  It instead said that the plaintiff must
show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the
asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than
conjectural."  California provides that a plaintiff need only show
(1) some threshold exposure and (2) that the exposure "in
reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in
contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos."

Ultimately the case was determined on the basis of the lack of
product identification.  The inability to identify the defendant
or the defendant's products meant there was no case under either
"maritime or California law" the judge wrote in his opinion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naplate Board Grants $1,350 for Abatement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Reynolds at The Times reports that Naplate Village (Illinois)
Board members has voted to spend $1,350 for asbestos inspection
and abatement in regard to the demolition of a former auto repair
garage in the 1700 block of Ottawa Avenue.

The board approved the demolition in October by a 3-1 vote.
Trustee Ed Doherty was the lone vote against approving the
demolition; Trustees Lloyd Ludwig, Missy Crawford and Art Ric
voted to accept the bid of $9,830 from Hy-Tech Specialized
Services, Inc., in Springfield.

At the board meeting, the board approved additional funding for
asbestos inspection and abatement of the property by a 2-1 vote.
Trustee Ed Doherty voted no, Ludwig and Mayor Jim Rick voted in
favor.

Mayor Rick said the additional money included $150 for an
Environmental Protection Agency permit fee, $402.19 to contain the
asbestos and $493.77 for a Dumpster.  There is an additional cost
of approximately $300 in lab costs to test the soil.

"Everything is documented," Mayor Rick said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Hazards Found at Mt. Greylock High School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy McKeever at iBerkshires.com reports that the ventilation
system in the gym at Mount Greylock Regional High School has been
shut down over concerns asbestos could have been blowing into the
gym for years.

Superintendent of Facilities Jesse Wirtes, a member of the
Building Subcommittee, told his colleagues on Dec. 6 that he shut
down the primary ventilation after finding what could be an old
asbestos wrap on the pipes.

While recent testing by the Department of Public Health has proved
the air quality to be better than school officials had thought,
this new discovery will require more testing.

Mr. Wirtes said that he called in environmental consultants,
Ecogenesis, to test the material after he found the wrapped pipes
a few days ago.  The wrap ties together hot water pipes and return
air system underneath the gym floor.

"We want to be certain if there is or isn't [asbestos]," Wirtes
said.  "I shut down the ventilation system under the gym floor
until we find out and we are running on two other systems."

Mr. Wirtes expects the results in the next few days -- but it's
not the only possible health problem hiding underneath that floor.
School Committee Chairman Robert Ericson, who also is on the
subcommittee, said when he was constructing new ramps during the
summer, he found a layer of rodent feces underneath the gym.  Now
he's concerned because the odor is coming into the gym.

"It's just another source of contamination," Ericson said.

These findings are the latest problems that have been found with
the aging building since school officials began ramping up their
push to build a new school.  Many of the issues from air quality
to noise to mold are outlined in the school's statement of
interest (SOI) to the state School Building Authority in an
attempt to get approved for reimbursement to build.  The Building
Subcommittee approved the draft of this year's submission on Dec.
6.

"We're learning a lot about this building," Wirtes said.

Asbestos have also been found in many of the floor tiles in the
1960s section of the school as well as on a fire curtain in the
auditorium.

The SOI will now have to be approved by the School Committee
before it is submitted to the MSBA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Contaminated Illinois Mall to Start
------------------------------------------------------------------
The SouthtownStar editorial related that demolition work will
begin in a few weeks on the Southland's legendary eyesore, the
long-vacant Dixie Square Mall property in Harvey, Ill.

It's expected that it will take several months to clear the
35-acre site, 151st Street and Dixie Highway, because of asbestos
contamination.  A similar project in 2005 was stopped when the
Illinois attorney general's office sued Harvey because the
asbestos removal wasn't being done properly.

The new project is being financed by $4 million in federal funds,
a necessity because no developer would be willing to take on that
cost to get the land ready for future use.  Assuming it's done
right this time, city officials expect the land to be available
for purchase and redevelopment next summer.

The property, which has been deteriorating since the indoor mall
closed in 1979, has defied many grand and not-so-grand
redevelopment plans -- ranging from a new White Sox ball park to a
mausoleum.

U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-2nd), and a succession of Harvey
mayors have tried to score political points in announcing the
various projects over the years, but not a brick has been laid nor
a drop of cement poured.

Sadly, the last time any money was spent on the site was for the
1979 "Blues Brothers" movie when the mall got a superficial
renovation so Jake and Elwood could destroy it during that
memorable car chase.

The 2005 demolition work was preparatory for a developer's
questionable $400 million plan for a new retail center there.

But after that work was halted because of the asbestos problem, it
never resumed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Court Rule Change Irks Plaintiff Bar
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News service reports, as the mass of
litigation over asbestos tapers down, the rules giving those cases
special treatment are being questioned by judges in San Francisco
Superior Court.  Such thoughts have brought a hard charge from the
plaintiff bar in the city, a politically powerful and wealthy
constituency.

The court is under intense financial pressure, operating with a
small funding reserve.  The special treatment of asbestos cases
drains precious resources, according to some of the judges, and
unfairly gives them priority over other cases.

"I thought it was apparent why the court would look at eliminating
general orders," said Judge Harold Kahn.  "Many of these general
orders are quite old and most noteworthy, we have many, many fewer
asbestos cases.  Some people believe some, if not many of the
rules are no longer fair, neutral or cost effective."

The court's announcement was a blow to the plaintiff bar, which
has benefited from rules that, while intended to ease the burden
of lengthy asbestos litigation on the court, also aid in the
settling of asbestos cases.  San Francisco has long been one of
the prevalent courts for filing asbestos actions, but the number
of cases has dwindled over the years.

Kahn noted that the number of active asbestos cases in San
Francisco now numbers 570.

At the hearing and in voluminous pages of comments submitted to
the court, the defense bar seemed largely in support of the
court's planned order.

Lack of money in a court has the nearly inevitable result of
slowing down the pace of cases, which in turn reduces the amount
of work for civil lawyers and reduces their resulting income.  The
current rules in effect give the asbestos lawyers a fast lane to
case resolution and the collection of fees while the rest of the
bar is stuck in the slow lane.

Earlier this year, when San Francisco Superior Court was about to
lay off a good part of its staff for lack of money, the
Administrative Office of the Courts gave the court $2.5 million
but imposed conditions on that grant.  One of them was that the
Court must retain the special courts for asbestos cases, in effect
siding with the plaintiff bar.

"Given the fact that the landscape has changed so much, the need
for most of these general orders is no longer there," said Brien
McMahon, Esq. -- BMcMahon@perkinscoie.com -- a civil attorney with
Perkins Coie.  The San Francisco-based firm submitted comments
that support eliminating the orders except for those that
streamline the discovery process and curb repetitive law and
motion practice.

"Not only is there no longer a need, now general orders are in
direct conflict with certain rules of civil procedure," said Peter
Cruz, Esq. -- pcruz@cbmlaw.com -- with Carroll, Burdick &
McDonough in San Francisco. "One size fits all doesn't fit all."

Certain generals orders on e-filing and telephone depositions "are
here to stay," Judge Kahn said, though one e-filing vendor present
at the hearing later questioned the standing order requiring that
all asbestos documents be electronically filed through private
publisher Lexis Nexis, a division of the English conglomerate Reed
Elsevier.

"Do the rules really consume any more resources?" asked plaintiff
attorney Stephen Tigerman, Esq. -- tigerman@htlawoffices.com --
with Harowitz and Tigerman.  "It may well be the general orders
are not a factor at all in this.  The rules were implemented for a
reason."

"Wouldn't you agree that a lot of those rules are obsolete and
need to go?" replied Judge Teri Jackson, who took over the
asbestos department from Judge Kahn.

"Go through the rules and throw out the outdated ones," said Mr.
Tigerman.  "I don't want to craft a whole new set of clothes when
we really need to adjust the hems or the seams."

"This court's proposal to unilaterally dismantle the program comes
like a shot out of the blue," said Mr. Tigerman's firm's written
comments.  "To our knowledge, our court has not previously
approached the asbestos bar with any concerns about the system
being 'broken,' let alone with any concerns about rules which
might be tweaked and improved."

Gilbert Purcell, Esq. -- gpurcell@braytonlaw.com -- whose Bay Area
firm Brayton and Purcell handles the bulk of asbestos cases in the
city, was similarly indignant.

"The notions about general orders being old, I don't know that any
of those are accurate," Mr. Purcell told judges Kahn and Jackson.
"The notion you should wholesale rescind the general orders - I
see a lot of very experienced people imploring you not to do that.
You need to take a step back and pump the brakes here because you
are off in an area where you have no data.  It is close to
consensus that this would be a mistake.  It truly is throwing a
grenade with a bad arm."

Judge Jackson indicated she would allow both sides to form a
committee on amending the orders, and will take recommendations on
which to rescind, but ordered the parties to do so by Dec 16.

"The plaintiffs committee was informally put together out in the
hall after the hearing.  It consists of all of the plaintiff firms
who appeared and made submissions," Mr. Tigerman said.  "We were
quite pleased with the court's response.  With the exception of a
few firms, there was virtual consensus from both sides of the bar
that pursuing it in the manner ordered Judge Jackson makes the
most sense."

Mr. Purcell told Jackson he believes the committee can produce
results by May 2012, though defense attorney Oliver Dunlap with
King & Spalding was skeptical that the rule situation could be
resolved in five months.  "Things get bogged down in committee,"
he said.  "I believe when May comes around, the most contentious
issues will be the ones that remain unresolved."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sarnia Mayor Asked to Visit Closed Quebec Mine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Morden of The Observer reports that asbestos opponent Stacy
Cattran says she rejects the fiber-splitting arguments of the
asbestos exporter who wants to reopen a closed Quebec mine.

Baljit Chadha, president of Montreal-based Mineral Fibre Inc.,
wrote to Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley Dec. 1 to turn down the
invitation to visit Sarnia and meet with asbestos victims.

The mineral was widely used in industry for years but is now
restricted in Canada.  Until recently, it was still mined in
Quebec and exported mainly to countries in the developing world.

The historic use of asbestos in Sarnia's Chemical Valley is linked
to a high level of asbestos-related cancers in Sarnia-Lambton.

The victims include Cattran's father, which led her and her
sister, Leah Nielsen, to join the fight against Canada's role in
mining asbestos.

The sisters organized a walk in remembrance of asbestos victims
earlier this year that attracted hundreds of people to Sarnia's
waterfront.

Mr. Chadha is working to reopen the closed underground Jeffrey
asbestos mine in Asbestos, Que., with the support of a $58 million
government loan guarantee.

In his letter, Chadha argues the chrysotile asbestos produced by
the mine can be used safely.

"For him to make those kinds of comments, it's very disingenuous,"
said Cattran.

Ms. Cattran pointed to the experience of Heidi van Palleske, a
Cobourg woman who attended the Sarnia walk.  Her father worked at
a Toronto factory where asbestos from the Jeffrey mine was used.

"Not only did her father die from exposure, but her mother died
from having been exposed to her husband's clothing, doing the
laundry," Cattran said.

In November, van Palleske held a press conference in Ottawa
calling for a ban on asbestos mining and exporting.

"It's a very false statement to make these claims that it can used
safely," Cattran said.

"It wasn't used safely in Canada and it certainly isn't being used
safely in the developing world."

In his letter, Chadha says safe practices developed for use of the
mine's asbestos will be exported along with it, and monitored
regularly.

"The idea of it being monitored over there," Cattran said, "is
almost laughable."

Ms. Cattran said she and other asbestos opponents are continuing
to work to increase public awareness about the issue.

They've recently been urging the Canadian Red Cross to remove
Chadha's wife, Roshi Chadha, from her seat on its board of
governors.

In his letter to Mayor Bradley, Chadha said, "It is unfortunate
that the discussion on the safe use of chrysotile (white asbestos)
here and elsewhere around the world has deteriorated to the point
where a civil dialogue does not seem possible."

Mayor Bradley said Chadha "had no problem going with his PR
experts to Parliament Hill . . . but he didn't have the courage to
come here."

Bradley said Sarnia's asbestos opponents were ready to treat
Chadha "with the utmost respect and civility" if he had been
willing to visit and speak with them.

"We have the truth on our side and he doesn't really want that to
make it into the media," Cattran said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red Cross Asked to Kick Chadha Spouse From Board
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Schmidt of Postmedia News reports that the Canadian Red
Cross will review the status of one of its board members after
critics called for the Montrealer to be dumped from the
humanitarian organization because of her connection to the
asbestos industry.

The governing body of the Red Cross is tackling the sensitive
topic of the private interests of Roshi Chadha at its January
meeting, Postmedia News has confirmed.

Ms. Chadha is an executive of Montreal-based Seja Trade Ltd., a
subsidiary of Balcorp Ltd. that has for years exported asbestos
from the open-pit Jeffrey asbestos mine in Quebec to India.  Her
husband, Baljit Singh Chadha, is seeking to revive the Quebec
asbestos industry as the president of Balcorp.

Roshi Chadha is also affiliated with Balcorp, which is leading
efforts to open a new underground Jeffrey mine to export asbestos
to Asia.  In addition to private financing, Balcorp is working to
secure a $58 million loan guarantee from the Quebec government.

The Canadian Red Cross is considered as a leading humanitarian
organization that provides disaster relief at home and abroad, and
anti-asbestos campaigners say any affiliation with the export of
asbestos to developing countries conflicts with its mandate to
improve the lives of vulnerable people.

"We're going to consider the concerns raised and it's a matter for
the board.  I'm not going to presuppose what the board's going to
do," Christopher Hilton, spokesman for the Canadian Red Cross,
said of the upcoming meeting in January.

Currently, the Red Cross does not specifically screen the private
interests of its board members.

Leah Nielson, originally from Sarnia, Ont., got things rolling
when she wrote to the organization recently, asking that Roshi
Chadha be removed from the board.  Nielson's father, Bill
Coulbeck, died in 2008 of mesothelioma following exposure to
asbestos as a younger man.  He worked as a laborer and
electrician, and carried fiber asbestos home on his work clothes.

Nielson's mother, Jackie Coulbeck, has a spot on her lung and is
now being monitored at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital as
part of its mesothelioma early detection program.

"I think the Red Cross is a wonderful organization.  They do so
much good in the world, and I think they're going to continue to
do a lot of good in the world, but I think they need to take a
good look at who's representing them," Nielson said, calling it a
conflict of interest to be a leader in a health-related
organization while "exporting this death to other countries."

Ms. Chadha declined to be interviewed about January's board
meeting.  When reached via email at Balcorp, she also declined the
opportunity to provide a written statement.

Ms. Chadha was elected to the board of directors at the annual
general meeting of the Canadian Red Cross in June 2008.  She is
one of four members-at-large on the 16-person board.

"We needed that specific skill set," Hilton said of Chadha's board
governance skills.  In addition to her work with the Red Cross,
Chadha also serves as a member of the Board of Governors at McGill
University and a member of board of directors of St. Mary's
Hospital Foundation.

Kathleen Ruff, who recently was awarded the 2011 Rideau Institute
Leadership Award for her work to end Canada's export of asbestos,
said the Red Cross should be praised for taking Nielson's request
seriously.

"We're all extremely hopeful that Red Cross will do the right
thing and we are extremely grateful that they're giving it the
seriousness that it warrants.  With human rights issues, it's very
easy to sweep things under the carpet and refuse to deal with
them," said Ruff.

Guy Versailles, a spokesman for Balcorp, said he has seen this
maneuver before, and said anti-asbestos campaigners ignore
evidence about the safe use of asbestos.

"Well, you know, they've tried to remove Mr. Chadha from other
positions, and they're going around basically raising a lot of
noise and a lot of fuss instead of answering the real questions,
which are basically: 'Where are the studies that support what you
claim?'  We have plenty of studies, people telling us it can be
used safely, but they just refuse to recognize (them)," said
Versailles.

Earlier this summer, the federal government blocked the listing of
chrysotile asbestos on Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, a
move supported by the asbestos industry in Canada.

Such a listing would have required Canada to receive "Prior
Informed Consent" before the mineral could be exported.  That
would have allowed developing countries that import asbestos to,
after being informed of the hazards, refuse to accept the
carcinogen if they thought they could not handle it safely.

The Conservative caucus also voted against an NDP motion earlier
this fall to ban the export of asbestos.  Five Tory MPs abstained.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Site Waterways Still Contaminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tests of the waterways surrounding Libby, Montana, show extremely
high levels of asbestos, complicating a cleanup that has already
cost $370 million over the past decade, reports the Great Falls
Tribune.  W.R. Grace & Co. mined asbestos-tainted vermiculite near
Libby to make residential insulation until 1990.  Now the area is
one of the largest superfund sites in the nation's history.  An
estimated 400 people have died and 1,750 were sickened by the
asbestos dust released from the vermiculite mine.

Until recently asbestos contamination in the water near the mine
was not given as much attention as the concentrations in the air.
The health effects from ingesting the mineral are not as well
documented as those from inhaling it; however, concerns arose when
the levels in Rainy Creek showed a count of 55 million asbestos
fibers per liter on May 17.  The limit for the same type of
asbestos fibers in drinking water is only 7 million fibers
(greater than 10 microns in length) per liter.

State officials called the results "troubling," according to the
Tribune, and asked the EPA and Grace to keep asbestos-contaminated
sediment away from the water with berms along the creeks, more
vegetation, and other methods.

"EMSL Analytical, Inc. has three decades of experience testing for
asbestos, and our expertise has made us the nation's leading
asbestos testing laboratory with over 30 locations nationwide,"
states Ed Cahill, EMSL's National Director of Asbestos.  "We use
the most advanced methods available to analyze asbestos in various
types of samples, including water, soil, rock, air, settled dust,
building materials, and vermiculite."

       About EMSL Analytical, Inc.

EMSL Analytical, Inc. -- http://www.emsl.com/-- is a nationally
recognized and locally focused provider of consumer product,
environmental, industrial hygiene, food and materials testing
services to professionals and the general public.  In addition,
the company offers a large variety of air sampling equipment,
sampling cassettes, and monitoring equipment.  The company has an
extensive list of accreditations from leading organizations, as
well as state and federal regulating bodies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Costs Stops Buyers for Old Hotel
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that in downtown Mobile, Alabama
sits one of the city's biggest eyesores -- a 1940s-built edifice
that was once a hotel but has seen better days, and is now a
favorite stomping ground for vandals and vagrants.  But several
opportunities to sell the building to investors have fallen
through due to the presence of hazardous asbestos, which will need
to be removed before any renovations proceed.

According to an article by Robert McClendon of the Press-Register,
a recent inspection of the building known as City Hall North
estimates that the cost of asbestos removal and that of other
contaminants will cost nearly a quarter-million dollars.  The
property has been appraised at $940,000, but the longer it sits,
the more it deteriorates.

The city has had the building on the market since 2007 but all the
questions about asbestos, including how much is inside and what
abatement will cost, have dissuaded a number of interested buyers
from putting an offer on the property.  City real estate manager
John Olszewski says he hopes the recent report outlining clean-up
costs will give potential buyers a better idea of what they'll
need to spend to get City Hall North up and running again.

In the meantime, the city of Mobile hopes to obtain a grant from
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perhaps assist them
with cleaning up the building on their own, which will make it
more attractive to viable buyers.  The grant would come from the
EPA's Brownfields Program, which helps communities clean up and
redevelop properties whose re-use is complicated due to the
presence of hazardous substances, like asbestos, which can cause
serious diseases when inhaled, including the cancer known as
mesothelioma.  Mobile should find out about their grant
application by next summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Offers Help to Mesothelioma Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The mesothelioma lawsuit lawyers of Williams Kherkher are prepared
to help individuals who have developed mesothelioma due to
asbestos exposure.  In order to keep the public educated about
asbestos and mesothelioma, it is important to analyze recent news
stories and events, like the recent CBC News report that Canada,
once the world's leading exporter of asbestos, has temporarily
suspended all asbestos mining in the country.

According to CBC News in Canada, The Jeffrey Mine and Lac
d'amiante have ceased operation for the foreseeable future, citing
financial and operational difficulties.  While the future of the
mines remains uncertain, with some advocating for their permanent
closure and industry officials insisting that they plan to reopen
sometime in 2012, this recent development only serves to highlight
the continued threat to human health posed by asbestos.

Until the 1970s, asbestos was commonly used in a wide range of
different products, including paint, piping, ceiling tiles, dry-
wall, and many other materials.  Because of its considerable
prevalence, many people experienced significant exposure to this
harmful mineral.  While safety regulations have since severely
restricted the use of asbestos, many buildings and products
constructed or manufactured before 1970 may still contain
dangerous levels of asbestos.  One of the most common consequences
of asbestos exposure, a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma,
claims between 2,000 and 3,000 American lives annually.

Mesothelioma sufferers may experience a wide range of painful
symptoms, and typically their prognosis is disappointingly poor.
Those who are afflicted with this tragic condition due to asbestos
exposure shouldn't have to deal with the consequences by
themselves.  The mesothelioma lawsuit attorneys of Williams
Kherkher are prepared to assist mesothelioma sufferers in pursuing
the compensation they deserve for their pain and suffering.

                      About Williams Kherkher

Williams Kherkher -- http://www.mesolawsuit.com-- is a mass-tort
law firm based in Houston, Texas, offering legal assistance to
clients nationwide.  The firm handles a variety of cases,
including those that involve personal injury, mesothelioma, and
defective pharmaceuticals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pearl Harbor Vets Face Mesothelioma Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Center reports that beyond the horrific memories
of the Pearl Harbor attack, survivors are also burdened by health
complications that still persist from diseases such as
mesothelioma.

Military veterans, especially Navy veterans like those who were
stationed at Pearl Harbor, are at an increased risk of contracting
deadly diseases and cancers because of asbestos exposure.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the lining of the lung that
develops after prolonged exposure to the toxic substance known as
asbestos.  Many Navy veterans have already displayed cases of the
cancer.

Frank Curre is one of these veterans who likely developed his
mesothelioma from his service in the Navy. A month prior to the
70th anniversary, Curre recounted his memories of that fateful day
with National Public Radio.

"What happened on that day," Curre said, "is tattooed on your
soul.  There's no way I can forget that.  I wish to God I could."

Curre was cooking on the USS Tennessee the day of the attack.
That day changed him forever.

His experiences continue to haunt him, just as his health does.
Because of the effects of the cancer, his case of mesothelioma is
not always apparent to the eye.

The disease is often accompanied by chest pains, dry coughing,
harsh breathing sounds and shortness of breath.  Eventually, it
leads to death.

Navy veterans who have mesothelioma likely were exposed to
asbestos on Navy ships where the deadly mineral was frequently
used.  When undisturbed and contained within products, the
substance is not dangerous.  However, when the fibers are
disturbed and enter the air, they can be ingested and get stuck in
the human body where they gradually destroy your organs.

Currently, no cure exists for mesothelioma.  However, patients who
get diagnosed early enough may have a chance at curative
treatments.  The cancer claims between 2,000 and 3,000 lives every
year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NIOSH Warns of Mineral Similar to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law of the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Cancer Resource
relates that a report issued by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health warns that the mineral erionite can
produce airborne fibers similar to the asbestos fibers that can
trigger mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer.

Erionite is a material that occurs in many parts of the Western
United States.  Typically found in gravel pits and gravel that is
used to surface roads, it can become airborne once it is
disturbed.  There are presently no preventative measures or
occupational exposure limits for erionite.  It is currently being
evaluated for exposure risks.

"Erionite-related disease has most often been reported in road
construction and maintenance workers with potential occupational
exposures to erionite-containing gravel used in road surfacing,"
states the NIOSH report.  NIOSH is a division of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2011, a North Dakota study was conducted on individuals who may
have had high exposures to erionite.  Two of the study
participants, who were road maintenance workers, were found to
have suffered adverse medical affects from their exposure to the
mineral.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Case Against Chow Brothers Adjourned
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lane Nichols at The Dominion Post reports that Wellington's (New
Zealand) Chow brothers put demolition workers at risk of
electrocution by leaving live electricity running when workers
bulldozed a Willis St. restaurant, the Labour Department says.

Michael and John Chow's company Willis Street Parking faces two
charges under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.  They are
also accused of exposing contractors to asbestos during the
January demolition.  If convicted, the Wellington sex
entrepreneurs face a fine of up to $250,000.

Lawyers representing the Chows appeared in Wellington District
Court this week arguing that the Labour Department's charges were
not specific enough.

Though the Chows' lawyer, Noel Sainsbury --
noel.sainsbury@xtra.co.nz -- indicated his clients might accept
having failed to take all practicable steps to prevent contractors
being electrocuted, "we'll scrap it out on the asbestos".

His clients would consider pleading guilty to "not acting fast
enough once we were told about the electricity -- we didn't cause
it, but we'll take it on the chin," Mr. Sainsbury said.

The problem, the court heard, was that the charges did not
differentiate between putting workers at harm through electricity
or asbestos, so it was impossible to bring a defense for one
offense but not the other.

"What I'm trying to do is make [the Labour Department] nail their
colours to the flag," Mr. Sainsbury said.

However, the department's lawyer, Greg La Hood, argued such
differentiation was necessary and "a nonsense".  The alleged
offending was clearly set out in the summary of facts.

"It is the offence of demolishing this building and exposing those
employees to harm," Mr. La Hood said.

Judge Chris Tuohy said Willis Street Parking was accused of
exposing workers to two distinct kinds of harm.

"One, the electricity wasn't turned off so there was a live wire
on the demolition site.  And two, they didn't remove asbestos from
the site before they started demolishing it.  One would result in
electrocution.  One would result in asbestos lung cancer.  So
they're two different types of harm."

Giving his decision the morning of Dec. 8, Judge Tuohy said the
case was unusual because it related to potential harm, rather than
actual harm suffered by an employee.  He ordered the Labour
Department to include more specific details on the two charges and
adjourned the case till later this month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chrysotile Rocks Found on Darwin's Beaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthea Kissel at ABC News reports that the Northern Territory
Environment Department has erected warning signs after the
discovery of pieces of white asbestos on some of Darwin's
(Australia) northern beaches.

Locals reported seeing small, rock-like chunks washing up on the
Casuarina foreshore in recent weeks and contacted the department.

Department officers say the chunks were tested and identified as
white asbestos chrysotile.

They say the debris may have drifted from the Nightcliff foreshore
and could continue to do so for some time.

Parks and Wildlife director Digby Whyte says white asbestos is not
considered to be dangerous.

"We have put up signs to alert people so they can see what
asbestos looks like and to not handle it," he said.  "We are in
the process of getting organized to remove it."

"I understand that white asbestos is the more common and more
milder form.  I think there are others like brown asbestos and
then there are types that are more friable but this is a cement-
tile type."

Mr. Whyte says the asbestos could be left-over debris from World
War II.  "That is a possibility we would like to investigate, if
there are any World War II dumps at Casuarina itself," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Test Findings Raise Fear Among Ark. Residents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hutson at todaysthv.com (Ark.) reports that some people in
North Little Rock fear their city park and their homes may be
contaminated with asbestos.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held a community meeting
Dec. 8 with residents to explain why they're testing Conley Park
and the Former North Little Rock Auto Salvage yard for the
hazardous material.

The North Little Rock Salvage Site is not an operating business
anymore but from 1953 to 1989, it was a vermiculite processing
facility.  Vermiculite is a common mineral compound used as an
insulator and the only way to obtain it is to mine for it.

The vermiculate processed in North Little Rock came from a mine in
Libby, Montana.  That mine was later found to be infected with
asbestos and officials say more than 200 people have died since
being exposed to the material there.  Now, residents in North
Little Rock feel their health is at risk.

Bernadette Conley and Elizabeth Houston grew up together in the
Dixie community of North Little Rock.  They were the first to
arrive at St. Stephen Baptist Church Thursday evening.  "We've got
a problem.  We definitely have a problem," says Conley.

"We've found some contamination on site.  Some asbestos
contamination on site and we found some off site as well," says
Althea Foster with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Ms. Foster says the EPA gathered the community to inform them of
asbestos detected at a former vermiculite processing center and a
small area of Conley Park.  "We hope and we expect that we will
have all the information we need to characterize the site," says
Foster.

The EPA told residents that asbestos can only be harmful if
airborne.

But for people like Ms. Conley who grew up breathing the air in
Dixie, the news is not comforting.

They say there was a fire earlier in the year at that former
processing center.  The smoke covered the community of Dixie.

"This being a low economic area, everybody don't trust the EPAs
and the people that come out and do the testing.  They just don't
trust them," says Conley.

"It is unlikely that there may be health issues at this point,"
says Foster.

But residents did not agree.

"People have died.  People that were once healthy and then you
look up and all of a sudden they're gone.  We know things happen,
we have bad health but sometimes things are unexplainable.  I
don't care if it's two inches.  Asbestos causes cancer," says
Conley.

The EPA says they're taking more samples and the next step is to
come in and remove the contaminated soil.  They told residents
asbestos is linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma and according
to residents, those are the illnesses they are facing in the area.

The Arkansas Department of Health says everyone is exposed to
asbestos at some point in their life and it is the amount of
exposure that determines health risk.

The amount in the Dixie community is still being determined.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Releases Declaration
----------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which combines
education, advocacy, and community to provide a unified voice for
asbestos victims, announced on Dec. 8, with the Canadian Voices of
Asbestos Victims the release of the North American Declaration to
Eliminate Asbestos-Related Diseases.

The Declaration initiates an enhanced collaboration between the
U.S. and Canadian asbestos disease victims and their families,
public health organizations, environmental non-governmental
organizations, occupational safety and health (OSH) specialists,
and politicians.  While ADAO has been individually partnering with
Canadian counterparts for education, advocacy, and community
initiatives for several years now, the North American Declaration
for the Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases unifies the
demands voiced by American and Canadian asbestos victims to
eliminate asbestos-caused diseases.

"It is truly unbelievable that the United States continues to defy
decades of science confirming asbestos is a human carcinogen,"
said Linda Reinstein, ADAO Co-Founder.  "The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) reports the United States imported an estimated 820
metric tons of asbestos in the first 7 months of 2010 and that it
imports 90% of its asbestos from Canada.  There are an estimated
35 million American homes and businesses insulated with Zonolite,
asbestos-tainted vermiculite, and countless numbers of families
will soon be crawling into their dangerous attics to collect
holiday decorations.  As a mesothelioma widow, I find this
unacceptable because numerous safer alternatives to asbestos
exist.  The ADAO looks forward to working with President Obama to
halt future asbestos imports and prevent future exposures."

"My father was exposed to asbestos while working as a labourer and
electrician at the petro-chemical plants in Sarnia, Ontario.  In
2008, he died from mesothelioma, just two months after his
diagnosis, thirty to forty years after he was exposed," said Stacy
Cattran, Canadian Voices of Asbestos Victims Co-Founder.  "Sarnia,
like so many industrial towns, has suffered the loss of too many
of her citizens to asbestos-related disease.  After 130 years of
mining asbestos, it is time for Canada to close the mines and
transition the affected workers to other forms of industry.  No
one else should be exposed to this carcinogen.  We must take steps
now which will prohibit Canada from ongoing export of asbestos to
the developing world, where it is exposing millions of workers to
the same life threatening hazards as my father experienced."

The posting of this declaration and petition on ADAO's website
serves as an invitation to all concerned citizens and
organizations both in North America and internationally to support
the North American Declaration to Eliminate Asbestos-Related
Diseases.  In February 2012, the ADAO and the Canadian Voices of
Asbestos Victims will deliver the North American Declaration and
list of supporters to Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper and
U.S. President Barack Obama urging them to take action to prohibit
the use and export of all asbestos.  The leading international
health agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO),
state that asbestos is a human carcinogen and that 107,000 workers
die annually from asbestos-related diseases.

Despite these findings, with support from the Canadian and Quebec
governments, Canada remains one of top countries in the world
exporting asbestos.  A decision is expected soon from the Quebec
government about financial support for reopening an asbestos mine
in Quebec, which would allow exports to continue for many years to
come.

The North American Petition to Eliminate Asbestos Related Diseases
can be accessed at http://bit.ly/vgtBeX

                            About ADAO

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) --
http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/-- was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004.  ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise
public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure.  ADAO is
an independent global organization dedicated to preventing
asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy and
community.  ADAO's mission includes supporting global advocacy and
advancing asbestos awareness, prevention, early detection,
treatment, and resources for asbestos-related disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mahoningside Site in Ohio Cleared of Toxics
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports that
Officials in Warren, Ohio, are proud to report that the site that
was once the biggest blemish on the city's landscape is now
cleaned up and ready for reuse.  According to an article in the
Business Journal Daily, an area known as the Mahoningside site
along the Mahoning River has been cleared of thousands of tons of
asbestos- and PCB-laden soil that made the area one of the most
toxic sites in the state.  Now, say local government officials,
someone may be interested in purchasing the land and building
something that will replace the long-time eyesore.

It's been 12 years since the effort to clean up the 6.5-acre site
began, and the city has spent $6 million to clean up the area that
was once home to Sterling Electrical Manufacturing Company, Warren
Electric Power and Light, and Summit-Warren Industries.  The plant
was dynamited in 1999 but the debris remained for a dozen years,
threatening the health of those nearby.

The clean-up, notes the article, was especially important and
extremely sensitive because of the proximity of the site to the
Mahoning River.  That meant that water contamination was a very
real threat, stressed Mayor Michael O'Brien, who notes that
contaminants -- including asbestos, PCBs, and other substances --
were found shortly after the plant was demolished.  These were the
result of 70 years of use by industries that commonly used
asbestos inside their plants.

From 1999 until the clean-up was complete, more than 16,000 tons
of contaminated soil was removed, added Michael Keys, Warren
director of community development.  "About 4,000 tons was soil
containing PCBs while another 10,000 tons contained asbestos," he
noted.

The Warren site is just one of hundreds of former power plants and
other industrial sites around the country that are contaminated
with asbestos-containing debris.  Many have been rehabilitated
with funds from state Brownfields programs, which allot money for
the clean-up of properties where re-use "may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant," according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Individuals who live or work near sites contaminated with asbestos
are constantly in danger of inhaling tiny asbestos fibers that can
become embedded in the lungs, causing cancers like mesothelioma as
well as other lung-related ailments.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Groups Call Out Obama and Harper
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports that President
Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be
helping more to stop the continued import, export and production
of asbestos in North America, according to a joint Declaration by
the leading advocacy groups in both countries.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Group and the Canadian Voices of
Asbestos Victims called on Dec. 8 for both leaders to endorse a
plan that includes an immediate ban on asbestos use in the two
countries.

The inhalation of asbestos is a well-known health hazard that
causes an estimated 3,000 cases of mesothelioma cancer annually in
the United States and an estimated 100,000 cases worldwide,
according to the World Health Organization.

Although asbestos already is banned in 50 countries in the world,
including most of Europe, neither the United States nor Canada has
followed that path, preferring only to restrict its use.

"Every day, Americans die from a preventable asbestos-caused
disease," Linda Reinstein, ADAO co-founder, told Asbestos.com.
"We urge President Obama and Prime Minister Harper to support (the
Declaration).  We ask . . . Obama to immediately ban the
importation and use of asbestos in the United States."

Medical experts say that someone dies from mesothelioma cancer or
another asbestos related illness every 3.4 hours.  Survival rates
from the disease are extremely low.

Asbestos has not been mined in the United States since 2002, but
businesses continue to import and use it in a variety of products
that expose millions of Americans to the dangers.  According to
the latest figures available from the U.S. Geological Survey, the
United States imported and consumed 820 metric tons of asbestos in
the first seven months of 2010, increasing the use from the year
before.

Much of the importation had been coming from Canadian mines.
Until last month, Canada still had two active asbestos mines under
operation, although the majority of the product was going to
India, Africa and Southeast Asian countries.  One of the two mines
that closed is expected to reopen soon, pending a $58 million
government loan guarantee.

"It is truly unbelievable that the United States continues to defy
decades of science confirming that asbestos is a human
carcinogen," Reinstein said.  "As a mesothelioma widow, I find
that unacceptable because numerous safer alternatives exist."

Asbestos, a naturally-occurring mineral, once was used extensively
throughout the world, valued for its heat resistance, durability
and low cost.  It was highly valued by the United States military,
which virtually mandated its use to help fireproof ships, planes
and most hardware.  It was used extensively in most residential
and commercial construction done before the 1980?s.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, roofing products account
for 72% of the asbestos use today in the United States.

"No one else should be exposed to this carcinogen," said Stacy
Cattran, co-founder of Canadian Voices of Asbestos Victims.  "We
must take steps now which will prohibit Canada from ongoing export
to the developing world, where it is exposing millions of workers
to the same life-threatening hazards as my father experienced."

Ms. Cattran's father, who worked for years around asbestos at a
petro-chemical plant, died in 2008 from mesothelioma.  The public
fight against asbestos in Canada is considerably more vocal than
it is in the United States because of the recent mining and the
economics involved.

Baljit Chadha, president of Mineral Fibre Inc. in Montreal, is
moving forward in his quest for the loan guarantee that would
enable him to re-open the Jeffrey Asbestos Mine in Quebec.  Mr.
Chadha has insisted that the chrysotile asbestos produced in the
mine can be used safely, which infuriates his detractors.

"For him to make those kind of comments, it's very disingenuous,"
Cattran said.

The two advocacy groups hope to deliver their North American
Declaration with a list of supporters to Obama and Harper in
February, urging them to take action.  In addition to a ban on
asbestos, they also will push for:

-- A North American registry of exposure locations and people
   with past exposures;

-- More support for early detection and treatment of asbestos-
   related diseases;

-- Stronger measures to prevent exposure to asbestos still in
   place and speed up abatement measures;

-- Support for asbestos-producing communities and workers in
   transition to alternative industries; and

-- Stopping any North American production and export of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avondale, Shell, DuPont & Am Oil Face Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett at The Louisiana Record reports that a lawsuit
recently filed in Orleans Parish Civil District Court alleges many
former employers of over 50 years are all responsible for a man's
recently diagnosed mesothelioma.

Roger Klibert filed suit against numerous employers throughout his
varied work history including Avondale Shipyard, Shell Oil
Company, DuPont, and American Oil, as well as associated insurance
companies and asbestos producers and suppliers.

The suit says all named employers dating back to 1946 are liable
for introducing Klibert to carcinogenic materials throughout his
career.  The case alleges those former employers negligently
and/or intentionally exposed him to asbestos and other toxic
substances.  Those named are also accused of concealing necessary
medical information regarding asbestos exposure and not revealing
the dangers inherent in handling asbestos and other hazardous
materials.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in damages related to
physical pain and suffering, mental pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment and lifestyle, reduction in life expectancy, loss of
income and earning capacity, loss of fringe benefits, future
medical expenses, loss of personal services, cost of care and
assistance, costs of custodial care, increased insurance costs and
penalties for the humiliation, frustration and inconvenience
caused by the defendants.

Klibert is represented by LaPlace based attorney Gerolyn P.
Roussel, of the Roussel and Clement Law Firm, who has requested a
jury by trial.

The case has been assigned to Division E Judge Madeline M.
Landrieu.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Circuit Judge Sets 2013 Docket
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison/St. Claire Record reports that Madison
County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder has provided Simmons Browder
law firm of East Alton with 185 valuable trial slots in her
asbestos court for 2013.

Judge Crowder granted Simmons Browder nine weeks with 19 exclusive
slots each week, plus 14 slots on a tenth day, in a preliminary
order on Dec. 1.  Simmons Browder captured more than 38% of 485
slots she granted.

Judge Crowder provided 128 slots, more than 26%, to Gori Julian of
Edwardsville; and she provided 84 slots, more than 17%, to
Goldenberg Heller of Edwardsville.  Together, the three firms
captured 82% of the slots.  Judge Crowder granted all three the
number of weeks they requested.

Judge Crowder provided 24 slots each to O'Brien Law Office and
Maune Raichle, both of St. Louis, in three weeks they will share
with other firms.  Maune Raichle had asked for four weeks.

Judge Crowder provided 16 slots each to Saville and Flint, of
Alton, and Shrader Law Office of Houston, Texas, in two weeks they
will share with others.  Shrader had asked for four weeks.

Judge Crowder provided slots only for the seven firms, but
designated eight slots in two weeks for a "cause docket" available
to anyone else.  She set three other weeks of cause dockets
showing no specific numbers.

"The court intends to avoid having one defendant in trial in more
than one courtroom on any docket absent exigent circumstances,"
Judge Crowder wrote at the end of the order.

"Counsel must also be aware that a living plaintiff who may be
seriously ill takes priority.

"The court will make every effort to fairly accommodate all
parties in the event of conflicts and retains the authority to
make exceptions to this order."

The deepest disappointment among plaintiffs fell on Michael
Bilbrey of Edwardsville, the only lawyer with slots in 2012 who
won't receive any in 2013.

The deepest disappointment among defendants fell on those who
proposed to curb Madison County's reputation as an open
jurisdiction.

Robert Shultz of Edwardsville offered the proposal for Union
Carbide in November, and dozens of defendants joined it.

Mr. Shultz wrote that reserving slots in excess of local need
opens Madison County to litigation with no connection to the
county.  He wrote that nine firms requested dates without
representing that they had local clients to fill the dates.  He
wrote that awarding dates without need "has transformed the right
to trial into a popular commodity in Madison County."  He wrote
that only three of 43 cases set on next year's trial docket have
any connection to the county.

These defendants joined Union Carbide's proposal to curb Madison
County's reputation as an open jurisdiction:

ALCOA, Allied Glove, Aurora Pump, Breeding Insulation, BW/IP Inc.,
CBS Corporation, Clark Equipment, Conoco Phillips, Cummins Inc.,
DeZurik, Duriron Company, Flowserve Corporation, Foster Wheeler
Energy, Grobet USA, H.M. Royal Inc., Hamilton Sundstrand, Hopeman
Brothers, IMO Industries, J.H. France Refractories, Kentile
Floors, Kinney Vacuum, Leeds and Northrup, Lighnin/Mixing
Equipment, Lindberg, M&O Insulation, New York Air Brake, Rexnord
Corporation, Reynolds Metal, Riley Stoker, Seco/Warwick, Sunbeam
Products, Swindell Dressler International, Taco Inc., Timpte
Industries, Utility Trailer Manufacturing, Viking Pumps, W.S.
Darley & Co., and Warren Pumps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salem Co Fined Over Unlicensed Abatement Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
has penalized Groom Construction Co, Inc., of Salem, $39,150 for
hiring an unlicensed asbestos contractor, AEI Environmental LLC,
of Lynnfield, to perform asbestos removal at two sites in 2010.

The first incident occurred at the Village Street School in
Marblehead, where asbestos abatement work was done from January
2010 through March 2010, and again in April of 2010.  The other
incident occurred at the town of Bolton's public safety building,
at 15 Wattaquadock Hill Road, where asbestos abatement work was
done in April 2010.

MassDEP determined during an investigation that AEI Environmental
was not licensed in Massachusetts to perform asbestos abatement
and that neither AEI nor Groom notified MassDEP of asbestos
abatement on any of the three occasions when asbestos removal work
was done at these sites as is required by law.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen that can pose significant public
health risks," said Eric Worrall, deputy regional director of
MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington.  "It is
critical that any asbestos abatement work is done by properly-
licensed contractors to ensure the protection of public health and
the environment."

As a result of the violations, Groom has paid $8,700, and $30,450
will be suspended for a period of 12 months.  In addition, Groom
will have four of its personnel attend 16 hours of asbestos
training within the next 180 days.  Groom will also have one staff
person attend a 40-hour training course for an asbestos supervisor
within 180 days.

Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal,
handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the
asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate
MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe
management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills, and the preservation
of wetlands and coastal resources.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Law Firm Expresses Support to ADAO/CVAV
--------------------------------------------------------------
The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., is
honored to support the efforts of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization (ADAO) to end the importation, exportation and
production of asbestos in North America.  Working with the
Canadian Voices of Asbestos Victims (CVAV), ADAO has launched the
North America Declaration to Eliminate Asbestos Related Disease,
an online petition that urges Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama to ban the use of asbestos.

"Most Americans are stunned to learn that the importation and use
of asbestos is NOT banned in the United States and that the USA
still annually imports hundreds of tons of asbestos from Canada
despite decades of knowledge that it is a deadly human
carcinogen," said Linda Reinstein, co-founder of ADAO.  "As a
mesothelioma widow and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization (ADAO), I urge President Obama and Prime
Minister Harper to support the North American Declaration to
Eliminate Asbestos-Related Diseases, to end the deadly legacy of
asbestos."

To learn more or to sign the North American Declaration petition,
visit http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/archives/8499

Stand up and let your voice be heard in the fight against
asbestos.

Every year, more than 10,000 Americans die from asbestos diseases,
such as asbestosis, asbestos lung cancer and mesothelioma.  Only
approximately 55 countries have banned the use of asbestos, and
the U.S. is not one of them.  According to 2010 statistics from
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), last year the U.S. imported
approximately 820 metric tons of asbestos, 90% of which came from
Canada.

Canada is one of only a handful of developed nations that still
mines and exports asbestos, though the use of asbestos has been
banned in their country.  Approximately 1,000 Canadians die every
year from asbestos diseases, including mesothelioma.

As a law firm dedicated to the global asbestos battle, Baron &
Budd is proud to be a 2011 Gold Sponsor of ADAO and to support the
organization in its outreach and advocacy efforts.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has a
more than 30-year history of "Protecting What's Right" for
asbestos sufferers and their families.  As one of the first law
firms to successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd
continues to actively represent veterans, industry workers and
others who are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos.
Baron & Budd achieved the largest mesothelioma verdict ever in the
state of Texas, a $55 million verdict for an asbestos sufferer and
his family in El Paso, Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bath Housing Tenants Offered Cash for Decors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bath Chronicle (UK) reports that Bath's biggest landlord is
offering to pay for new Christmas decorations for some of its
tenants after an asbestos alert turned their lofts into no-go
zones.

Social housing provider Somer is working its way around 93 homes
in Twerton and Weston where low-level asbestos cement residue has
been found in loft spaces.

The material had remained despite a program to remove asbestos
cement roofing sheets conducted by Bath and North East Somerset
Council before the transfer of its 10,000 homes to Somer in 1999.

Housing officials have advised the tenants concerned not to go
into their lofts until the remedial work has been completed, and
have offered GBP50 towards replacement trees and decorations
because these are usually stored in the roof space.

The homes concerned are immediate post-war British Industry Steel
Frame properties which are among Somer's oldest houses.

The housing group says it has visited all the residents concerned
and liaised closely with local councilors.

The properties in Weston will all be dealt with in the next two
weeks, but some of the Twerton homes will not have the last traces
of asbestos removed until the end of March.

Somer said the residue was first found while contractors were
putting in a new heating system at a property in Weston earlier
this year.

A statement from Somer said: "We arranged for all the lofts in
these types of properties to be checked and this confirmed that 93
properties in Weston and Twerton were affected.  The asbestos
cement residue has been graded as low risk in accordance with the
Health and Safety Executive's asbestos grading criteria.  However
it is our standard practice to take action on any asbestos which
is not in good condition.

"The asbestos cement residue presents a low risk to health by its
nature.  However, as a safety precaution we have advised residents
not to enter their lofts until the residue has been removed.

"Where residents have needed urgent access to items in their loft,
we have offered help.  As we know many residents keep Christmas
decorations in their lofts we have offered residents whose lofts
are not yet accessible a GBP50 contribution to the cost of buying
a Christmas tree and decorations."

Meanwhile, Somer says it has completed three quarters of a
refurbishment project where it sacked the contractor earlier this
year.

MITIE was set to carry out a major five-year program of
refurbishment work across many of Somer's properties but its
contract was ended by the housing association in October.

At that stage, kitchen, bathroom and rewiring work had started in
64 homes.  Somer says the work will be all but finished by
Christmas, with some projects delayed until after the festive
period at the request of residents.

The association added: "We have put mechanisms in place to carry
out any urgent works in the short term.  We are still considering
our delivery strategy for the remainder of the main kitchen,
bathroom and electrical rewire program.  We will inform all our
residents affected by the suspension of the program of our plans
to complete the full program shortly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Robreno Rejects Plaintiff's Expert Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Tremoglie at Legal Newsline reports that a federal
judge presiding over thousands of asbestos cases combined in
multi-district litigation has ruled that a plaintiff's expert
report was inadmissible because it was in an "unsworn" form.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ruled that without the
expert report, the plaintiff lacked the sufficient product
identification necessary to support opposition to the defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

Judge Robreno presides at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Robreno ruled Dec. 2 in favor of the motion by the defendant,
Warren Pumps, for a summary judgment in the case.

The defendant asked for summary judgment because it claimed that
there was insufficient evidence for product identification.  The
plaintiff's attorneys had relied on the testimony of an expert
witness.  But the judge ruled that the witness was unsworn and the
evidence, therefore, was inadmissible.

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure . . . provides that a party
asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support that
assertion with particular parts of material in the record, such as
an affidavit or declaration.  The United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit has found that an unsworn expert report 'is
not competent to be considered on a motion for summary judgment',"
Robreno wrote.

The plaintiff's attorneys argued that an affidavit was not
required, believing that an expert report would be sufficient for
purposes of opposing the summary judgment motion.

Although the judge noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
was amended "effective December of 2010 to provide that a
declaration, that is an unsworn statement subscribed to under
penalty of perjury, can substitute for an affidavit."  But, he
also said that "an expert report that is not sworn to under
penalty of perjury or accompanied by an affidavit is not proper
support in disputing a fact in connection with a motion for
summary judgment."

Ultimately, Robreno rejected the plaintiff's claim that an unsworn
expert report was sufficient for purposes of the summary judgment
motion.

He then ruled that since the plaintiff's attorneys did not comply
with the requirements, the expert report was "not competent" to be
considered in support of opposition of the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Uncover Asbestos During Blaze
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catie Guitart at STV News (Scotland) reports that a fire at a
workshop in Midlothian was declared a chemical incident at late
night of Dec. 8, after crews discovered asbestos had been used to
construct the building.

Commanders at the scene on Newbattle Abbey Business Park in
Dalkeith were forced to pull firefighters from fighting the blaze
because of fears the roof would collapse.

At one stage, 29 firefighters and four fire engines including a
turntable ladder were required to bring the flames under control
after the alarm was raised at 9:15pm.

No one was injured in the blaze.

A spokesperson for Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue said: "We
were called to a fire in a single storey building that was used as
a workshop.  It was well alight when crews arrived on the scene.

"It was discovered that the roof was asbestos so the incident was
upgraded to a chemical incident.

"Four breathing apparatus, one hose reel and two main jets were
used to extinguish the fire.  The firefighters within the inner
cordon had to wear dust masks.  There were 29 firefighters and 6
senior offices.

"Crews were damping down the whole time in case there were hot
spots."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children of Asbestosis Victim Sue Exxonmobil
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates of The Southeast Texas Record reports that the
children of the late William Butchee, Sr., has filed suit against
their father's former employer, Mobil Oil, for allegedly exposing
him to asbestos.

Marcella Worthey and William Butchee, Jr., filed the suit Dec. 2
in Jefferson County District Court.  ExxonMobil is also named as a
defendant.

According to the lawsuit, Butchee was exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers during his employment with Mobil Oil.  The suit does not
give dates of employment.

"As a result of such exposure, Butchee developed ... pulmonary
asbestosis, for which he died a painful and terrible death on Dec.
14, 2010," the suit states.

The suit also alleges the defendants knew for decades that
asbestos exposure caused cancer but still allowed employees to
work with asbestos products.

The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages.

Attorney Keith Hyde of the Beaumont law firm Provost Umphrey
represents them.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Actor Dies From Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald posted a report by the Australian
Associated Press relating that Australian actor Harold Hopkins has
died in a Sydney hospital from the asbestos-related cancer
mesothelioma.

Hopkins, who had major roles in several classic Australian movies
including Gallipoli, Don's Party and The Club, died at Neringah
Private Hospital in the Sydney suburb of Wahroonga on Dec. 11.  He
was 67.

Hopkins' family said he had contracted the cancer in his first job
after high school, when he worked with asbestos sheeting as an
apprentice carpenter in south-east Queensland in the early 1960s.

Hopkins is survived by his twin brother, John, and five other
siblings, Naomi, Michael, Gregory, Margaret and Suzanne.

Hopkins' brother-in-law, Rowland Hill, said the actor had
auditioned for a role in Baz Luhrmann's upcoming film, The Great
Gatsby, in May, just days after he had been diagnosed with the
cancer.

It was Hopkins's chance to strut his skills in the role of Henry
C. Gatz -- Gatsby's estranged father -- in a 1920s suit and
fedora.

Hopkins knew he would never be able to play the character, but he
seized the opportunity anyway.

"It [the audition] was just a great opportunity to take part in
the industry that he had spent a lifetime in," Mr. Hill said.

Described by his family as a charmer and a larrikin with an
exuberance for life, Hopkins was born on March 6, 1944, in
Toowoomba in south-west Queensland.

In the early 1960s, he took on a carpentry apprenticeship, working
without protective masks or clothing and unwittingly allowing
asbestos fibers to penetrate his lungs and chest for close to half
a century, his family said.

During his lifetime Hopkins appeared in 16 movies, also including
Age of Consent and The Year My Voice Broke.  Hopkins also appeared
in more than 160 episodes of television series such as Barrier
Reef, Homicide, The Godfathers, Twenty Good Years, Sarah Dane, A
Nice Little Earner and Underbelly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Diagnosed With Mesothelioma Gets $2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lakamp at The Buffalo News reports that a jury last week
awarded $2 million to a Niagara Falls man who filed an asbestos
lawsuit a year ago in State Supreme Court.

Gerald Failing, 66, was diagnosed in December 2010 with peritoneal
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos.

Under state law, Mr. Failing was entitled to an expedited trial
date because of the nature of his illness, said Keith R. Vona,
Esq. -- krv@lipsitzponterio.com -- an attorney at Lipsitz &
Ponterio who, together with attorney Michael A. Ponterio, Esq. --
MAP@lipsitzponterio.com -- represented Failing during the two-week
trial.

"This verdict is an excellent victory for Mr. Failing and workers
like Mr. Failing who were not adequately protected in the
workplace," Mr. Vona said.

Retired State Supreme Court Justice John P. Lane, serving as a
judicial hearing officer, presided at the trial.

In 1966 Mr. Failing began work in the compound department at Durez
Plastics in North Tonawanda, a maker of industrial resins and
molding compounds.  While working in the compound department, Mr.
Failing used raw asbestos fibers to make granulated plastic
molding compounds, his lawyers said.

Hedman Resources Ltd., a Canadian asbestos mining company,
supplied some of the raw asbestos that Failing poured and mixed at
Durez.

The pouring and mixing led to airborne asbestos contamination,
producing a visible dust in his work area, Vona said.

Hedman did not warn workers of the dangers, Vona said.

The jury in this case assigned 100% of the responsibility for
damages to Hedman, finding that its actions were taken with
reckless disregard for the safety of others, Vona said.

Mr. Failing worked at the company until 1978.  He retired in 1990.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Say COD Is Both Industrial and Natural
---------------------------------------------------------------
North West Evening Mail (UK) reports that after an inquest into
the death of Kenneth Arts on Thursday, Dec. 8, his wife Margie
Arts, 69, said she was sure his exposure to asbestos at Vickers'
had made him unable to fight the pneumonia he suffered at the end
of his life.

Kenneth Arts, 80, died on September 30.  During his life, Mr Arts,
of Newby Terrace, Barrow, worked at the shipyard for Vickers and
as a postman.  He was also a member of, and campaigner for, a host
of pensioners, walking and political groups.

South and East Cumbria coroner Ian Smith found that both
asbestosis of the lungs and enlargement of the heart led to the
heart failure that killed Mr. Arts.

Mr. Smith said: "The two things are not related.  Both affect the
heart and both led ultimately to the heart failing.  It's
industrial and natural causes together."

Asbestosis is a chronic condition where the lungs swell and grow
excess tissue after inhaling Asbestos, which was once widely used
in the shipyard.

After the hearing, Mrs. Arts, who is the secretary of the Barrow
and Furness Pensioners Association, said she felt her husband
could have pulled through had it not been for the asbestosis.  She
said: "I think, and it is my opinion, that without the damage
caused to his lungs by asbestos, Ken would have been able to fight
the pneumonia that the medics say caused his demise.

"The scourge of asbestos that hangs over too many residents and
past residents of Barrow is something that should be advertised as
much as possible."

Mrs. Arts thanked all those who helped Mr. Arts while he was at
the High Dependency Unit at Furness General Hospital.

Son Keir Arts, 31, said: "Obviously there's other stuff that
contributed.

"But if you take asbestos out of the picture he must have stood a
lot better chance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prior Work as Welder Blamed for Singer's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express and Star (UK) reports that on Dec. 10, tributes were paid
to a well-known club singer from Wolverhampton after an inquest
found he died as a result of inhaling asbestos fibers.

Colin Archer was exposed to the potentially dangerous substance
during his many years as a welder.  He had suffered with lung
problems for around 10 years before he died in March this year,
Wolverhampton Coroner's Court heard last week.

The 77-year-old frequented pubs and clubs across the Black
Country, including the Railway Club in Bushbury, before he fell
ill, his daughter said.  Mr. Archer's family paid tribute to the
former Tarmac welder, saying he "always had a smile on his face."

His daughter Jayne Edge, 47, of Meldon Drive, Bradley, Bilston,
said: "When we were growing up dad used to tell us about the
asbestos he worked around.

"He always said it would kill him.  I just can't believe it
finally has."

Mr. Archer was born in West Bromwich and grew up in Wednesbury.

He worked for Tarmac in Ettingshall for 19 years as a welder and
fitter.

His wife Mildred, a school cook, died in 1992 at the age of 57.

Mrs. Edge added: "Dad always enjoyed singing and had been
performing in clubs ever since I was young.

"He went over to Benidorm two or three times a year to sing.  They
called him Mr. Full Lungs over there.

"He was very bubbly and was always happy but he really struggled
towards the end."

Mr. Archer was admitted to Compton Hospice on March 5 and died on
March 11.

Before going to Compton Hospice, he lived in Hall Green Street,
Bradley.

Mr. Archer leaves behind son Glenn, 51, and five grandchildren.

The inquest heard that post mortem tests carried out on Mr. Archer
showed he had a tumour on his lungs.  Assistant deputy coroner
Angus Smillie said: "He had asbestosis and a tumour.  He died from
an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $268,000 Grant Starts Work on Parking lot
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Griffin at Patch Network reports that after a re-bidding
process and work to remove asbestos, demolition of the former
Rimback has begun to make room for parking in downtown Millburn,
N.J.

The Millburn Township Committee in October awarded a $268,000
contract for the removal of the asbestos and the demolition of the
former Rimback storage building - the first step toward building a
parking lot on the site at Essex and Spring streets.

It had been sent out for bids earlier but the asbestos was
discovered and the original request for proposal had not included
the hazardous materials removal.

The dilapidated, empty storage building has long been seen as an
eyesore and the answer to some of downtown's parking issues.  The
township hopes to use the lot for commuters during construction of
a downtown parking deck on Essex Street and Lackawanna.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Timeline for YMCA Building Demolition Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Poletti, writing for Quincy Herald-Whig, reports that the
former YMCA building in downtown Hannibal (Mo.) is coming down,
but city Building Inspector Joey Burnham cautions that it may be
some time before the crumbling building meets its end.

Crews from Smashey and Sons Construction began work Monday,
Dec. 5, on demolishing the century-old building at 418 Center,
which has suffered serious structural deterioration over the last
several years.

Mr. Burnham said that workers will demolish the building by hand
to minimize impact on the dense concentration of homes in the
surrounding area.

That potentially lengthy process has led the city to drop the 45-
day requirement it had imposed for the building's demolition, the
building inspector said.

Smashey and Sons received its Notice to Proceed Nov. 29, meaning
demolition would have wrapped up shortly after the first of the
year if the 45-day requirement stood.  But Burnham could not offer
a timeline for the end of the demolition process.

"When they're going to have to do it by hand ... whatever it takes
to have them do it safely," Burnham said.

Smashey and Sons was awarded the $60,000 demolition contract at
the Nov. 2 City Council meeting, and Burnham said at that time
that he expected to issue the company a Notice to Proceed within
the next few days.

But the process hit a snag when inspectors in the building
discovered asbestos, which is fairly common in older buildings.

Mr. Burnham said the asbestos was non-friable, meaning it won't
easily release toxic asbestos fibers into the air, is less
hazardous and could be removed more easily.

"As long as they take it out without tearing anything up or doing
anything that makes it friable," it shouldn't have a serious
effect on the demolition process, he said.

An asbestos inspector worked with Smashey and Sons to iron out
that portion of the process, he said.

The YMCA of Hannibal moved from Center Street to its current
location off McMasters Avenue in 1981.  The health club has
operated in Hannibal since 1911.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Concern Grows Amid Initial EPA Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Johnson at KATV.com reports that the Environmental Protection
Agency continues to test for asbestos in a North Little Rock
neighborhood after the toxic mineral was found at Conley Park.

"We are just blanketing the area right now making sure we're
covering all the area we can just to make sure there isn't
widespread contamination," said Mike McAteer, On-Scene Coordinator
with the EPA.

On Dec. 11, McAteer's crew wrapped up a weekend's worth of
drilling and investigating at Redwood Pre-School.  Isolated
amounts of asbestos have been found near the softball field in
Conley Park and also outside of two residential properties.

Mr. McAteer doesn't believe there is a health risk or a widespread
problem in the neighborhood known as "Dixie."  He believes the
asbestos originated at a Zonolite vermiculite plant in Libby,
Montana that was found to be crawling with asbestos in 1999.  Up
until 1990, Zonolite owned a North Little Rock plant not too far
from Dixie.

"We possibly had a chance of being exposed to asbestos and the way
it looks, looks like we did and I have a concern about that," said
lifelong resident Bernadette Conley.

Conley's father died of lung cancer before having the now-
contaminated park named after him for his engineering work for
North Little Rock.  She says he never smoked a day in his life.

The naturally occurring mineral can cause cancer if exposed.

"If the contamination is in the surface soils, and if they were to
pick up that contamination and inhale it there is the potential
for a long term health risk there," said McAteer.

The associated health risks worry people who grew up playing in
Conley Park.  Some suffer from diseases even their doctors can't
figure out.

"I'm 62 years old, if my body shuts down like a 1-year-old, they
don't understand that," said Dorothy Gilliam, who lives directly
across from the park.

However, McAteer is skeptical that his team's findings could pose
significant health problems.  "My thinking is that it would be
tough for the small amount that we have found," he said.

It will take the EPA a week to analyze samples and work on a
detailed report.  They plan to come back in January for more
testing.

And those residents are growing more skeptical about what they
think is a growing problem.

"I understand disturbing asbestos is what causes the problem,"
said Ms. Conley, "well this park has definitely been disturbed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TV & Radio Ads Against Asbestos Hazard Return
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ellis of The Daily Mirror (London) reports that a campaign to
warn workers of the deadly dangers of asbestos is returning -- a
year after it was dumped by the Coalition.

The award-winning Hidden Killer adverts were originally launched
in 2008 to highlight the concealed risk within the construction
industry.

But they fell victim to the Tory-led Government's spending cuts
last January to the fury of health experts.

Now pressure from builders' union Ucatt, MPs and the Asbestos
Timebomb campaign have prompted the Health and Safety Executive to
restore the life-saving ads in the New Year.

About 4,000 people die due to asbestos-related diseases every
year.

Ucatt leader George Guy said: "A fresh phase of the campaign is
long overdue.  It saves lives."  Natascha Engel, Labour MP for
North East Derbyshire, added: "The campaign should never have been
frozen in the first place."

The TV and radio ads will highlight the perils of the killer dust
to construction workers, particularly those in maintenance and
refurbishment.

The UK has the highest number of deaths from mesothelioma, an
incurable cancer caused by exposure to asbestos which claimed more
than 2,000 lives last year.

Ucatt advises all workers that if they are unsure whether asbestos
is present to stop work immediately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ron C. Eddins Receives Super Lawyer Honor
----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma trial attorney Ron C. Eddins received a Super Lawyers
rating for Southern California, an honor bestowed upon no more
than 5% of all the lawyers in the state.  Super Lawyers is a
rating service that provides information and ratings on lawyers in
over 70 practice areas.  The multi-phased selection process is
accepted by lawyers and bar associations around the country.

"I'm honored and flattered to receive such special recognition
from my peers in the Southern California legal community," said
Ron Eddins, founder of Eddins Law Firm.

Super Lawyers, a publication of Thomson Reuters, issues a regular
publication that features the list of approved Super Lawyers as
well as profiles of selected attorneys.  This publication is
distributed to attorneys in their specific states or region as
well as ABA-accredited law school libraries.  To be considered a
Super Lawyer, lawyers are first nominated and then must be
reviewed through independent research and peer evaluations.  The
objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse
listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource
for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.

The Super Lawyers selection process involves three basic steps --
creation of the candidate pool via nomination, evaluation of
candidates by the research department and peer evaluation by
practice area.  Eddins received his Super Lawyer rating in the
practice areas of Personal Injury Plaintiff: Products, which
includes cases of asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, and Class
Action/Mass Torts.

Receiving the Super Lawyer honor is the most recent accolade that
Eddins has received from the organization.  In the past, he has
received the distinguished Texas Rising Star award for the years
2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.  Rising Stars are given to up-and-
coming attorneys in a particular state who are 40 years old or
younger, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less.

Eddins and the other mesothelioma attorneys at Eddins Law firm
believe in providing quality legal counsel and trial services to
their clients nationwide.  The firm handles all aspects of a
lawsuit from initial intake to research to litigation and through
to appeal, if necessary.

                       About Eddins Law Firm

Eddins Law Firm, P.C. -- http://www.eddinsfirm.com/-- is one of
the country's most prominent trial law firms experienced in
representing victims of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure and
other complex legal disputes.  No matter how large the corporation
may be, or the size of its defense legal team, the Eddins Law
Firm, P.C. has the resources to try lengthy multiple week trials
to verdict.  Because of the firm's successful track record in
obtaining large verdicts and settlements, the Eddins Law Firm,
P.C. is capable of leveraging significant settlements often early
in the litigation process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roanoke School Bldgs Needs Repair/Abatement
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Wolfe at Pantagraph.com reports that The Roanoke-Benson
School District will have to decide how to handle maintenance and
repair of its buildings, and nearly all their options would
include a tax increase.

All three buildings need to be updated and repaired, including
work on roofs and electrical, plumbing and heating systems, and
asbestos needs to be removed from ceilings, walls and floors where
renovations are made.

"Our roofs are in sad shape," board President Mike Blunier said.

BLDD Architects has estimated the cost up to $18 million, but the
district's debt limit is $9 million.

Using a stepped plan, the board likely will have to borrow money
to cover work for the larger projects.

"We have no opportunity to gain," said board member Todd Harris.
"I don't want to borrow to cover expenses; we're already borrowing
to make ends meet," he said, referring to an outstanding working
cash bond.

The board can issue up to $9 million in life-safety bonds without
going to the public for approval of a referendum.  Board members
have estimated the district could spend $5 million to $9 million
for life-safety work.

"The bottom line is you could fund this project without a
referendum," Blunier said.  "I can't personally support imposing
life-safety bonds to the tune of $7 million without putting it out
to the public."

Borrowing $9 million by issuing bonds is estimated to raise real
estate taxes by $200 per year, for 20 years, for a residence with
an assessed value of $100,000.

The board also could ask the public to raise the maximum levy in
the building fund through a referendum, which likely would have to
be maxed out every year for several years.

"We don't have any plans that are affordable at the moment," board
member Brad Sauder said.  "We need to have the committee to come
up with a plan.  There are things that need to be upgraded and
improved and here is a chance to do that.  I want to take a
revised version of what we can afford to the people."

Once the board puts together a specific maintenance and repair
plan, it expects to take the information to the public.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Risk Pushes Parents to Withdraw Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Smerdon of the Star News Group in Australia reports that a
Hoppers Crossing (Victoria) mother is pulling her daughter out of
Galvin Park Secondary College amid fears she may have been exposed
to asbestos and black mold.

Vivienne Piper's 14-year-old daughter Elena has had pneumonia
three times in the last four months and Ms. Piper is currently
awaiting test results to confirm it was caused by the damage at
Galvin Park.

Several roofs at the school have caved in due to weather, causing
asbestos to be disturbed and black mold to form.  Students are no
longer allowed in the damaged rooms.

Ms. Piper said she was not aware of the full extent of the damage
until just over a week ago.  "I'm totally disgusted with the
school due to the lack of duty of care," Ms. Piper told Star.

"They knew about this a long time ago and they didn't let the
parents know so they could get health checks for their kids.

"It's like a plague that's eating its way through the school and
that's the only reason we found out."

Ms. Piper said she would be sending her daughter the The Grange P-
12 College next year until she could get a guarantee that her
daughter would be safe.  "It might seem a bit cowardly to pull my
daughter out but she's way more important than the school," she
said.  "If I can prove that my daughter is sick because of this
then I will sue," Ms. Piper said.

Katherine Henderson from the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development (DEECD) said that the school was suffering
from other parents withdrawing their students.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminant Find Adds C$150,000 to Project Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Nova Scotia published that a C$2 million demolition
project in the Halifax area is running over budget and behind
schedule.

The job at the former Rehabilitation Centre in Cole Harbour slowed
when contractors discovered unexpected contaminants on the site,
including asbestos, hydro-carbons and bio-medical waste.

"What they didn't anticipate was under the concrete slab on the
south building was ash.  That ash is a hazardous material.  They
also uncovered an underground [oil] tank.  They have to deal with
that as well," said Shaune MacKinlay, spokeswoman for Halifax
Regional Municipality.

"It's a considerable job.  It will add to the time to deal with
that site."

The city council is set to decide on Dec. 13, whether to spend
another C$150,000 on the project.

The facility sits on a 50-acre site and operated from 1941 to
2002.  It was set on fire in 2010.

Ms. MacKinlay said dealing with the hazardous material would add
about four months to the project.

According to a staff report prepared for council, the contractor
JW Lindsay Enterprises and consultants Dillon Consulting say the
complications have increased their costs for everything from site
security to the removal of contaminated soil.

According to the report, the project has also been delayed
awaiting approval from the provincial Environment Department.

Lori Errington, a spokeswoman for the department said they are
waiting for a plan to deal with "materials of concern" found on
the site.  "We have had preliminary discussions.  When we receive
it, staff will evaluate their plan to ensure it meets guidelines
for the disposal of hazardous materials," Ms. Errington said.

The city intends to cap the contaminated area.  It said trucking
the hazardous material off site would cost another C$500,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Cache Adds 6 Weeks to Glen Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Gordon of the Eastern Courier Messenger reports that an
asbestos discovery at the Glenside (Adelaide SA) Hospital
redevelopment site is set to delay work by about six weeks.

During demolition of the building formerly known as the Glen, 153
concrete piles encased in asbestos were discovered under the
structure.

A spokeswoman for Health Minister John Hill said there were no
records showing the 12m piles or that they were made with asbestos
casing.

"Building guidelines state that asbestos should always be removed
if this can be done safely, but this seems to be a case where
removing the asbestos is the more risky option," she said.

The asbestos used on the piles was in good condition.

The Glenside project team's preference was to remove the top 4m of
the piles and seal off the area.

"This has been endorsed by our environmental consultants, as well
as the project's independent environmental auditor, as an
appropriate solution from the perspective of both human health and
the environment," she said.

The cost of the partial removal was about AU$1.6 million and would
delay completion of the redevelopment by six weeks.

Health Minister John Hill said last week a complete removal would
involve excavating the entire site, cost about AU$7 million and
delay work by eight weeks.

Mr. Hill said the process could expose workers and neighbors to
any bits of asbestos that might break off.

The Government has applied to SafeWork SA for permission for the
partial removal.  The removal had not been approved as of this
report.

A SafeWork SA spokesman said they were seeking further information
before making a final decision.

The work is being done as a part of the Glenside campus
redevelopment, which includes a $130 million hospital to treat
mental health, drug and alcohol problems, shops and a headquarters
for the South Australian Film Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Booklet on Choosing Asbestos Law Firm Published
----------------------------------------------------------------
SFGate.com posted that the mesothelioma law firm of Clapper,
Patti, Schweizer & Mason (CPSM) has just published a booklet that
shares all the top tips in choosing the right firm for those who
have been injured by asbestos.

The booklet warns that many attorneys claim to have the ability to
serve clients who have mesothelioma.  However, not just any
attorney can successfully litigate an asbestos case.  Asbestos
litigation is one of most complex areas that exist in the law.
Without a law firm that specializes in asbestos cases, the legal
process can be an uphill battle.

CPSM has been devoted to representing clients who have been
injured by asbestos for over 30 years.  They are recognized as
leading mesothelioma attorneys who have consistently won
substantial awards for their clients.  As experts in their field,
they give the top three recommendations for choosing a law firm:

1. Experience.

Nothing tops years spent litigating asbestos lawsuits and
bankruptcy claims, and it's even better if the firm either
exclusively handles these types of cases or has someone who has
specialized in this field of law for at least ten years.

2. Personal Touch.

When battling cancer and facing the end of life, it's even more
important to choose a law firm that has excellent personal
service.  One sign of this is the client's ability to speak
directly to an attorney, not a paralegal or secretary, and get
their questions answered right away.  Another is the willingness
of attorneys to come to you, realizing that your medical treatment
is first priority.  Lawyers who have represented clients with
mesothelioma will do everything possible to make the legal process
as easy and stress free as possible while still keeping the client
informed.

3. Track Record.

Look for a law firm that has a long track record of obtaining
millions of dollars in financial recoveries for their clients and
families, through jury verdicts, settlements, and bankruptcy
claims.  In addition, you want a firm that has a history of
achieving early financial awards, as this can help greatly in
covering medical expenses.  The law firm should have attorneys and
a well-developed staff that are experts with product
identification, bankruptcy trusts, probate, and wrongful death
claims.

Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason has all three: over 3 decades of
experience, a high degree of personal service, and a proven track
record that speaks for itself.  CPSM has been around long enough
to see the great difference these three things make to families
who are battling this fatal, incurable disease.

The firm may be reached at:

          THE LAW OFFICES OF CLAPPER, PATTI, SCHWEIZER & MASON
          2330 Marinship Way, Suite 140
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Tel: (415) 332-4262
          Fax: (415) 331-5387


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 'Hidden Killer' Campaign Resumes in 2012
---------------------------------------------------------
An article by the UK Construction News relates that construction
union Ucatt has welcomed the Health & Safety Executive's decision
to resume its ?Hidden Killer' asbestos awareness campaign in 2012.

The Hidden Killer campaign was launched by the HSE in 2008 and
warned construction workers, particularly those involved in
maintenance and refurbishment work, of the dangers of asbestos.

Construction workers are now the group most likely to be exposed
to asbestos in the workplace.  Despite this, there is a very high
level of ignorance of the continuing dangers of asbestos among
these workers, Ucatt says.

A further phase of the campaign was due to have taken place in
October 2010 but was suspended amid public spending constraints.

Ucatt acting general secretary George Guy said the resumption of
the campaign was "excellent news".  He said: "The Hidden Killer
campaign saves lives.  A fresh phase of the campaign is long
overdue.  All the feedback shows that the campaign has been
successful in educating construction workers on the dangers of
asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Directs Alcoa to Produce Docs
----------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Lee Millsaps was allegedly exposed to asbestos fiber from
clothes worn by her father-in-law, who worked at the Tennessee
plant of Aluminum Company of America from 1965 to 1986.  Ms.
Millsaps died of mesothelioma in 2009.  Robert W. Millsaps, her
husband, filed a complaint against Alcoa.

Mr. Millsaps filed a motion to compel seeking an order directing
Alcoa to provide discovery.  Alcoa responded and submitted a
related motion for protective order.  The thrust of Mr. Millsaps'
argument is that Alcoa has been avoiding providing discovery,
primarily document production, through a variety of maneuvers,
including changing counsel and promising but not providing
discovery.

In a Dec. 2, 2011 memorandum and opinion, Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth T. Hey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied in part and granted in part Mr.
Millsaps' motion.  According to Judge Hey, Mr. Millsaps is not
entitled to all of the 1,300 boxes of Alcoa documents relating to
another case entitled Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co. and
Alcoa Inc., No. 3-237-03 (Knox County Circuit Court).  But, Judge
Hey said, because the documents related to Satterfield are now in
word-searchable electronic format, the parties' concern can be
fairly addressed with an appropriately tailored term search.

The "when" of Alcoa's production should be prompt, Judge Hey
warned.  She said there's little justification for there not
having been a search and production from Alcoa's database at this
stage of the case.

The case is Millsaps v. Aluminum Company of America, MDL 875 EDPA
Civil No. 10-84924 (E.D. Pa.).  A copy of Judge Hey's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/yR9MFNfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Finds No Case v. Huber's Attorneys
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald L. Huber, et al., filed a consolidated individual personal
injury action for exposure to asbestos in a Mississippi state
court -- Mississippi Asbestos Exposure Consolidated Litigation.
Robert G. Taylor, II, the Pritchard Law Firm, PLLC, et al.,
represented Huber, et al., in the consolidated litigation.

The state court denied a motion for class certification.  Huber
filed a motion to amend judgment, which also served as an
interlocutory appeal.  Huber alleged that their counsel breached
their Texas law fiduciary duty by failing to adequately disclose
material information, including, co-counsel arrangements and
settlement information, to Mississippi AECL participants residing
in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, allocating settlement funds
disproportionately owing to conflicting fee incentives, and
failing a duty of candor/disclosure by imposing excessive charges.

Huber seeks interlocutory appeal on what they call the Court's
fundamental errors in these "controlling questions of law": (A)
whether the parole evidence rule applies to interpretation of a
contract in the context of a breach of fiduciary claim; (B)
whether Pritchard was Huber's attorney; and (C) whether there is
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Taylor
satisfied his fiduciary duties to Huber in attempting to withdraw
from representation.

In a Dec. 5, 2011 memorandum and opinion, Chief Magistrate Judge
Lisa Pupo Lenihan denied Hubert's motion to amend judgment on the
basis that they presented no "controlling question of law" as to
which there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion."

Addressing the first issue, Judge Lenihan ruled that parole
evidence rule is inapplicable.  The Court pointed out that the
cases cited by Huber in their memoranda supporting their motion
were and remain factually and legally inapposite.  Judge Lenihan
noted that Huber's contention that the parole evidence rule could
be invoked by (a) a third party with neither contractual nor
beneficiary relationship to the contract to (b) preclude the
contracting parties' evidence of mutually-agreed intent and course
of conduct over several years where (c) that third-party wished
the Court to interpret the contract to have had some other meaning
and (d) said party had introduced, despite nine years of
litigation, was rejected because not one iota of evidence that the
contract had been interpreted or implemented in a manner
potentially giving rise to the improper settlement allocations
alleged.

On the second issue, Judge Lenihan pointed out that whether or
note Pritchard was Huber's attorney is not a question of law.
Huber's status as clients of Pritchard would not be controlling,
as grant of summary judgment on their claim for disgorgement for
breach of fiduciary duty arising from disproportionate settlement
allocations attributable to conflicting fee incentives, as against
Pritchard, would remain appropriate, Judge Lenihan held.

On the third issue, Judge Lenihan found that the Local Counsels'
correspondence adequately and appropriately provided notice to
their clients of their withdrawal from representation in the
asbestos litigation.  Judge Lenihan concurred with the state
court's observation that Huber had elected, through other counsel,
to initiate litigation against the Counsels alleging various
misconduct.

The case is Huber v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 002-304 (W.D. Pa.).
A copy of Judge Lenihan's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/YrGMnFfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. App. Ct. Says Waste Mgmt Can't Use Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., and Waste Management Holdings,
Inc., sued a large number of insurance companies seeking insurance
coverage for asbestos and mixed dust-related claims arising from
products from its baghouse division.  The Insurers, which include
Continental Insurance Co., filed an interlocutory appeal from the
Marion Superior Court's order denying their motion for summary
judgment in connection with Waste's second amended and
supplemental complaint.  The Insurers present a number of issues
basically asking whether the trial court erred in determining that
Waste might be entitled to coverage under the Insurers' policies.

In a Dec. 6, 2011 memorandum and opinion, Judge Paul D. Mathias
reserved the superior court's decision.  The Appellate Court noted
that none of the pre-1986 policies were issued to Waste.  Rather,
all of the relevant policies were issued to Honeywell
International, and the policies provide coverage only for claims
asserted against the name insured, and not for the claims of third
parties like Waste.

In 1986, when Honeywell sold its baghouse process to WTI, WTI
agreed to assume to pay all of Honeywell's liabilities relating to
the baghouse process.  Judge Mathias pointed out that the supreme
court in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., Inc. v. United States
Filter Corp., 895 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. 2008), it is clear that no
insurance coverage rights transferred to Waste by virtue of the
1986 Agreement.  The U.S. Filter Court directed entry of judgment
for the Insurers after concluding, "[t]o the extent the alleged
Wheelabrator blast machine injuries had occurred but had not yet
been reported at the time of the relevant transactions, they did
not constitute an assignable chose in action."

Judge Mathias said he is constrained by the supreme court decision
in U.S. Filter and Waste has not directed him to any evidence in
the record or presented any argument in its briefing that would
lead to an opposite result.  For the reasons expressed in U.S.
Filter, those claims do not constitute an assignable chose in
action, Judge Mathias reiterated.  And because Honeywell was no
longer liable for the Baghouse Claims in 2009 when it entered into
an agreement with Waste regarding insurance coverage and a
confidential claims handling agreement regarding dust claims, by
virtue of Waste's unqualified assumption of its liabilities in the
1986 Agreement, Honeywell had no insurance coverage rights to
assign to Waste as a chose in action, Judge Mathias concluded.

The case is remanded to the superior court for further
proceedings.

The case is Continental Insurance Co. v. Wheelabrator
Technologies, Inc., No.49A02-1010-PL-1110 (Ind. App. Ct.).  A copy
of Judge Mathias' Decision is available at http://is.gd/ANu8CK
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Ct. Finds GE/CBS Immune From Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Morgan, a former U.S. Navy and Coast Guard personnel, filed
an action in the Circuit Court of Wilcox County, Alabama, in May
2011, naming dozens of defendants, among them CBS Corporation and
General Electric Company.  Morgan alleged that he was exposed to
asbestos products defendants manufactured, processed, sold,
installed, marketed and allowed by the defendants to be on
premises they controlled, and that he had contracted "an asbestos
related disease" via that exposure.

CBS and GE filed a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama, Northern Division.  In their
Notice of Removal, GE and CBS invoked the defense of "government
contractor immunity from liability for injuries arising from any
exposure to asbestos attributable to its Navy equipment."  Morgan
filed a motion to remand citing both jurisdictional and procedural
defects in removal.

In a Dec. 6, 2011 memorandum and opinion, District Court Judge
William H. Steele denied Morgan's Motion to Remand.  Deciding on
GE and CBS's government contractor defense, Judge Steele held that
they have presented substantial evidence as to each element of the
government contractor defense.  Affidavits showed that
Westinghouse and GE turbine equipment installed on Navy ships
during the relevant time period was not off-the-shelf product, but
was manufactured to meet exacting military specifications.  It was
the Navy, not contract manufacturers, that required the use of
asbestos thermal insulation with turbines intended for
installation on Navy ships, Judge Steele pointed out, citing GE
and CBS's affidavits.

This evidence, according to Judge Steele, is adequate on its face
to make a plausible showing that the U.S. Government approved
reasonably precise specifications in the design of GE and CBS's
turbines to be installed on Navy ships.

The case is Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc., Civil Action No.
11-0535-WS-B (S.D. Ala.).  A copy of Judge Steele's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/ykyjTgfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Ct. Finds Fulton Not Insured Prior to 1976
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., asserts equitable estoppel/waiver
against several insurance companies, including American Motorists
Insurance Company, and seeks judgment declaring that the Insurers
are obligated to fully defend and indemnify Fulton in connection
with thousands of civil lawsuits filed against it alleging
exposure to asbestos.

From 1949 until the mid-1970s, Fulton manufactured and sold
boilers that contained asbestos parts.  While the parties dispute
whether Fulton purchased insurance prior to 1976, it is generally
agreed that a combination of comprehensive general liability
policies issued by the Insurers covered Fulton for asbestos
exposure risks from 1976 until 1993.  Beginning in the early
1990s, Fulton has been named in the asbestos civil lawsuits.

At issue in this case is the proper allocation of indemnity costs.
The parties agree that a pro rata allocation of indemnity costs is
consistent with the comprehensive general liability policies
involved.  The parties, however, dispute which parties should be
included in an allocation and to what extent.

In a Dec. 9, 2011 memorandum and opinion, Judge David H. Hurd of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York held
that each asbestos claim must be considered as a single
occurrence.  Further, he said, the liability for a particular
claim should be prorated according to the time each Insurer
provided coverage during the overall time period the injury-in-
fact was occurring.  Fulton must also be assigned a pro rata share
of indemnity costs for any uninsured or insufficiently insured
portion of a particular claimant's injury.

The Court denied Fulton's motion for summary judgment barring the
Insurers from allocating it a share of indemnity costs for claims
alleging injury-in-fact before October 1976  The Insurers' motions
for summary judgment seeking to allocate a share of indemnity to
Fulton for the time period spanning 1949 until October 1976 is
granted.

The Court noted that Fulton's assertion that it had general
liability coverage prior to October 1976 is supported only by the
self-serving testimony of its current and former executives who
maintain that it was always the custom, practice, and philosophy
of the company to purchase proper insurance coverage.

But the Court granted Fulton's motion regarding allocation of
indemnity costs for post-1993 years.  Specifically, Fulton cannot
be allocated any share of indemnity costs for the portion of a
claimant's injury-in-fact?which began prior to October 1, 1993?
that continues after October 1, 1993.  This, the Court ruled, has
no impact on Fulton's obligation to pay, without indemnification
from defendants, for claims alleging injury-in-fact beginning
after October 1, 1993.

The case is Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists
Insurance Company, No. 5:06-CV-1117 (N.D.N.Y).  A copy of Judge
Hurd's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Gqktl7from
Leagle.com.

Fulton is represented by:

         Brian J. Osias, Esq.
         Gita F. Rothschild, Esq.
         Anne E. Matthews, Esq.
         McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
         Four Gatewat Center
         100 Mulberry Street
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Tel: (973) 622-4444
         Fax: (973) 624-7070
         E-mail: bosias@mccarter.com
                 grothschild@mccarter.com
                 amatthews@mccarter.com

American Motorists is represented by:

         James B. Green, Esq.
         CHARLSTON, REVICH & WOLLITZ LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2746
         Tel: (310) 551-7046
         Fax: (310) 203-9321
         E-mail: jgreen@crwllp.com

             - and -

         James A. Hoare, Esq.
         FIBERTECH NETWORKS LLC
         Rochester, NY

             - and -

         Richard P. Plochocki, Esq.
         OFFICE OF RICHARD P. PLOCHOCKI
         One Lincoln Center
         Syracuse, NY
         Tel: (315) 425-1593

One Beacon Insurance Company is represented by:

         Kristin V. Gallagher, Esq.
         CARROLL, MCNULTY & KULL LLC
         570 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: (212) 252-0004
         E-mail: kgallagher@cmk.com

Employers Insurance, et al., is represented by:

         Jennifer V. Schiffmacher, Esq.
         Sheila M. Finn Schwedes, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF EPSTEIN & HARTFORD
         Williamsville, NY, North Syracuse, NY.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Company is represented by:

         Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Esq.
         Stephen V. Gimigliano, Esq.
         GRAHAM, CURTIN P.A.
         4 Headquarters Plaza
         P.O. Box 1991
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1991
         Tel: (973) 292-1700
         Fax: (973) 292-1767
         E-mail: rmauriello@grahamcurtin.com
                 sgimigliano@grahamcurtin.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Ct. Denies Fobbs' Service Connection Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie M. Fobbs, in August 1998, filed claim for service
connection for the cause of her husband's death.  Her husband,
Charles C. Fobbs, served on active duty in the Merchant Marine
from April 1942 to August 1945, including extended service at sea
during WWII.  Mr. Fobbs passed away on January 2, 1985.  His death
certificate indicated that he died from pneumococcus meningitis,
sepsis, and a urinary tract infection.  At the time of his death,
Mr. Fobbs was not service connected for any disabilities.

Mrs. Fobbs' claim was denied by the Veterans Affairs regional
officer.  The appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals was also
denied.  The Veterans Court remanded the claim back to the Board.
An examiner reviewed Mr. Fobbs' medical history and concluded that
his death was neither caused by, nor resulted from, his military
service, including any asbestos exposure or other environmental
exposure.  Mrs. Fobbs raised the issue to the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Federal Circuit.

In a Dec. 12, 2011 memorandum and opinion, a three-member panel
composed of Judge Pauline Newman, Judge S. Jay Plager, and Judge
William C. Bryson, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The panel held that Mrs. Fobbs' arguments, although framed as
constitutional issues or as challenges to the Veterans Court's
interpretation of a statute, actually challenge factual
conclusions reached by the Board, or the application of laws and
regulations to the facts of the particular case.  The Veterans
Court, according to the panel, merely applied established law to
the facts and circumstances of Mrs. Fobbs' case.

The panel dismissed the appeal because they may not review those
types of challenges.

The case is Fobbs v. Shinseki, No. 2011-7154 (Fed. Cir.).  A copy
of the Dec. 12 Decision is available at http://is.gd/3wULZjfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Defends Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
in Canada, 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 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as
defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff
filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of
The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as
defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et
al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of
insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of
Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the
Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, the Company learned that
six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in
various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery
from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R.
Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries
suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of
employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W.
R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any
liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these
actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc., had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto -- Canadian
Court -- recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In
November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has
subsequently been amended -- Canadian Settlement -- will be
entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on
December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. The Company
does not have any positive obligations under the Canadian
Settlement, but it is a beneficiary of the release of claims. The
release in favor of the Grace parties (including Sealed Air) will
become operative upon the effective date of a plan of
reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding. As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the
claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to
injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The
Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order on January 31,
2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011. The Canadian
Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full
effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all
provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Confirmation Order's terms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI
Settlement Plan has not become effective, and the Company can give
no assurance that the PI Settlement Plan (or any other plan of
reorganization) will be approved by the District Court or will
become effective. Assuming that a final plan of reorganization
(whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization)
is approved by the District Court, and does become effective, if
the final plan of reorganization does not incorporate the terms of
the Canadian Settlement or if the Canadian courts refuse to
enforce the final plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts,
and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and
indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then
the Company could be required to pay substantial damages, which it
cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position and results
of operations.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical
and consumer applications.  Its operations generate about 54% of
its revenue from outside the United States and about 16% of its
revenue from developing regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Continues to Monitor Grace Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to review the bankruptcy
proceedings of W.R. Grace & Co. for potential liabilities greater
than its obligation under the settlement of asbestos-related
personal injury claims related to the Cryovac packaging business,
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 31, 1998, Sealed Air completed a multi-step transaction
that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed
Air Corporation's business under the common ownership of the
Company. These businesses operate as subsidiaries of the Company,
and the Company acts as a holding company. As part of that
transaction, the parties separated the Cryovac packaging business,
which previously had been held by various direct and indirect
subsidiaries of the Company, from the remaining businesses
previously held by the Company. The parties then arranged for the
contribution of these remaining businesses to a company now known
as W. R. Grace & Co., and the Company distributed the Grace shares
to the Company's stockholders. As a result, W. R. Grace & Co.
became a separate publicly owned company. The Company
recapitalized its outstanding shares of common stock into a new
common stock and a new convertible preferred stock. A subsidiary
of the Company then merged into the former Sealed Air Corporation,
which became a subsidiary of the Company and changed its name to
Sealed Air Corporation (US).

In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its
subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their
operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or
occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than
liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac's operations.
Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating
to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by
Grace's subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including
its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn.,
which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace
since the Cryovac transaction. The Cryovac transaction agreements
provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any
of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace
or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities,
Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend Sealed Air.

Since the beginning of 2000, the Company has been served with a
number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, it is responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of
Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-
defendants in some of these actions. Among these lawsuits are
several purported class actions and a number of personal injury
lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or
wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring,
environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic
insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor
Cryovac, Inc., ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-
containing materials that are the subjects of these cases. None of
these cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or
otherwise. Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding has stayed all
of these cases.

While the allegations in these actions directed to the Company
vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the
Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a
fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability. Under a
theory of successor liability, plaintiffs with claims against
Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold the Company liable
for liabilities that arose with respect to activities conducted
prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. or
other Grace subsidiaries. A transfer would be a fraudulent
transfer if the transferor received less than reasonably
equivalent value and the transferor was insolvent or was rendered
insolvent by the transfer, was engaged or was about to engage in a
business for which its assets constitute unreasonably small
capital, or intended to incur or believed that it would incur
debts beyond its ability to pay as they mature. A transfer may
also be fraudulent if it was made with actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud creditors. If a court found any transfers in
connection with the Cryovac transaction to be fraudulent
transfers, the Company could be required to return the property or
its value to the transferor or could be required to fund
liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries for the benefit of their
creditors, including asbestos claimants. The Company has reached
an agreement in principle and subsequently signed a settlement
agreement, that is expected to resolve all these claims.

In the Joint Proxy Statement furnished to their respective
stockholders in connection with the Cryovac transaction, both
parties to the transaction stated that it was their belief that
Grace and its subsidiaries were adequately capitalized and would
be adequately capitalized after the Cryovac transaction and that
none of the transfers contemplated to occur in the Cryovac
transaction would be a fraudulent transfer. They also stated their
belief that the Cryovac transaction complied with other relevant
laws. However, if a court applying the relevant legal standards
had reached conclusions adverse to the Company, these
determinations could have had a materially adverse effect on its
consolidated financial condition and results of operations.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and a number of its subsidiaries filed
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware. Grace stated that the filing was made in response to a
sharply increasing number of asbestos claims since 1999.

In connection with its Chapter 11 filing, Grace filed an
application with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to stay, among
others, all actions brought against the Company and specified
subsidiaries related to alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and
its subsidiaries or alleging fraudulent transfer claims. The court
issued an order dated May 3, 2001, which was modified on January
22, 2002, under which the court stayed all the filed or pending
asbestos actions against the Company and, upon filing and service
on the Company, all future asbestos actions. No further
proceedings involving the Company can occur in the actions that
have been stayed except upon further order of the Bankruptcy
Court.

Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace's
bankruptcy case received the court's permission to pursue
fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company and its
subsidiary Cryovac, Inc., and against Fresenius. The claims
against Fresenius are based upon a 1996 transaction between
Fresenius and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. Fresenius is not affiliated
with Sealed Air. In March 2002, the court ordered that the issues
of the solvency of Grace following the Cryovac transaction and
whether Grace received reasonably equivalent value in the Cryovac
transaction would be tried on behalf of all of Grace's creditors.
This proceeding was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (Adv. No. 02-02210).

In June 2002, the court permitted the U.S. government to intervene
as a plaintiff in the fraudulent transfer proceeding, so that the
U.S. government could pursue allegations that environmental
remediation expenses were underestimated or omitted in the
solvency analyses of Grace conducted at the time of the Cryovac
transaction. The court also permitted Grace, which asserted that
the Cryovac transaction was not a fraudulent transfer, to
intervene in the proceeding. In July 2002, the court issued an
interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied in the trial,
holding, among other things, that, subject to specified
limitations, post-1998 claims should be considered in the solvency
analysis of Grace. The Company believes that only claims and
liabilities that were known, or reasonably should have been known,
at the time of the 1998 Cryovac transaction should be considered
under the applicable standard.

With the fraudulent transfer trial set to commence on December 9,
2002, on November 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the Committees prosecuting the claims against the
Company and Cryovac, Inc., to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims arising from the Cryovac transaction. On
the same day, the court entered an order confirming that the
parties had reached an amicable resolution of the disputes among
the parties and that counsel for Sealed Air and the Committees had
agreed and bound the parties to the terms of the agreement in
principle. The agreement in principle called for payment of nine
million shares of Sealed Air's common stock and $513 million in
cash, plus interest on the cash payment at a 5.5% annual rate
starting on December 21, 2002 and ending on the effective date of
an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy,
when the Company is required to make the payment. These shares are
subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for the
effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events
affecting the Company's common stock, and as a result, the number
of shares of its common stock that the Company will issue
increased to 18 million shares upon the two-for-one stock split in
March 2007. On December 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors
approved the agreement in principle. The Company received notice
that both of the Committees had approved the agreement in
principle as of December 5, 2002. The parties subsequently signed
the definitive Settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003
consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. On
November 26, 2003, the parties jointly presented the definitive
Settlement agreement to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware for approval. On Grace's motion to the U.S. District
Court, that court transferred the motion to approve the Settlement
agreement to the Bankruptcy Court for disposition.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving
the Settlement agreement. Although Grace is not a party to the
Settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is
directed to comply with the Settlement agreement subject to
limited exceptions. The order also provides that the Court will
retain jurisdiction over any dispute involving the interpretation
or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Settlement
agreement. The Company expects that the Settlement agreement will
become effective upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy pursuant
to a plan of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of
the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, where the fraudulent transfer
trial was pending, requesting that the court vacate the July 2002
interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied relating to
the fraudulent transfer claims against the Company. The Company
was not challenging the Settlement agreement. The motion was filed
as a protective measure in the event that the Settlement agreement
is ultimately not approved or implemented; however, the Company
still expects that the Settlement agreement will become effective
upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of
reorganization that is consistent with the terms of the Settlement
agreement.

On July 11, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing
the proceeding brought in 2002 by the committees appointed to
represent asbestos claimants in the Grace bankruptcy proceeding
against the Company without prejudice to its right to reopen the
matter and renew in its sole discretion its motion to vacate the
July 2002 interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied
relating to the fraudulent transfer claims against the Company.

As a condition to the Company's obligation to make the payments
required by the Settlement agreement, any final plan of
reorganization must be consistent with the terms of the Settlement
agreement, including provisions for the trusts and releases and
for an injunction barring the prosecution of any asbestos-related
claims against the Company. The Settlement agreement provides
that, upon the effective date of the final plan of reorganization
and payment of the shares and cash, all present and future
asbestos-related claims against the Company that arise from
alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its affiliates
(including former affiliates that became the Company's affiliates
through the Cryovac transaction) will be channeled to and become
the responsibility of one or more trusts to be established under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code as part of a final plan of
reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy. The Settlement agreement
will also resolve all fraudulent transfer claims against the
Company arising from the Cryovac transaction as well as the
Fresenius claims. The Settlement agreement provides that the
Company will receive releases of all those claims upon payment.
Under the agreement, the Company cannot seek indemnity from Grace
for its payments required by the Settlement agreement. The order
approving the Settlement agreement also provides that the stay of
proceedings involving the Company will continue through the
effective date of the final plan of reorganization, after which,
upon implementation of the Settlement agreement, the Company will
be released from the liabilities asserted in those proceedings and
their continued prosecution against the Company will be enjoined.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization --
Grace Plan -- with the Bankruptcy Court. There were a number of
objections filed. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants -- ACC -- and the Asbestos PI Future Claimants'
Representative -- FCR -- filed their proposed plan of
reorganization -- Claimants' Plan -- with the Bankruptcy Court in
November 2007. On April 7, 2008, Grace issued a press release
announcing that Grace, the ACC, the FCR, and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders -- Equity Committee -- had
reached an agreement in principle to settle all present and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims against Grace -- PI
Settlement -- and disclosed a term sheet outlining certain terms
of the PI Settlement and for a contemplated plan of reorganization
that would incorporate the PI Settlement -- as filed and amended
from time to time, the "PI Settlement Plan".

On September 19, 2008, Grace, the ACC, the FCR, and the Equity
Committee filed, as co-proponents, the PI Settlement Plan and
several exhibits and associated documents, including a disclosure
statement (as filed and amended from time to time, the "PI
Settlement Disclosure Statement -- with the Bankruptcy Court.
Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and the PI Settlement
Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court
from time to time. The PI Settlement Plan, which supersedes each
of the Grace Plan and the Claimants' Plan, remains pending and has
not become effective. The committee representing general unsecured
creditors and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage
Claimants are not co-proponents of the PI Settlement Plan. As
filed, the PI Settlement Plan would provide for the establishment
of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g) of the United States
Bankruptcy Code to which present and future asbestos-related
claims would be channeled. The PI Settlement Plan also
contemplates that the terms of the Settlement agreement will be
incorporated into the PI Settlement Plan and that the Company will
pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement agreement. On March
9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the PI
Settlement Disclosure Statement -- DS Order -- as containing
adequate information and authorizing Grace to solicit votes to
accept or reject the PI Settlement Plan, all as more fully
described in the order. The DS Order did not constitute the
Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan,
approval of the merits of the PI Settlement Plan, or endorsement
of the PI Settlement Plan. In connection with the plan voting
process in the Grace bankruptcy case, the Company voted in favor
of the PI Settlement Plan that was before the Bankruptcy Court.
The Company will continue to review any amendments to the PI
Settlement Plan on an ongoing basis to verify compliance with the
Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2009, a senior manager with the voting agent appointed
in the Grace bankruptcy case filed a declaration with the
Bankruptcy Court certifying the voting results with respect to the
PI Settlement Plan. This declaration was amended on August 5, 2009
-- as amended, the "Voting Declaration". According to the Voting
Declaration, with respect to each class of claims designated as
impaired by Grace, the PI Settlement Plan was approved by holders
of at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number
(or for classes voting for purposes of Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code, at least 75% in number) of voted claims. The
Voting Declaration also discusses the voting results with respect
to holders of general unsecured claims -- GUCs -- against Grace,
whose votes were provisionally solicited and counted subject to a
determination by the Bankruptcy Court of whether GUCs are impaired
(and, thus, entitled to vote) or, as Grace contends, unimpaired
(and, thus, not entitled to vote). According to the Voting
Declaration, more than one half of voting holders of GUCs voted to
accept the PI Settlement Plan, but the provisional vote did not
obtain the requisite two-thirds dollar amount to be deemed an
accepting class in the event that GUCs are determined to be
impaired. To the extent that GUCs are determined to be an impaired
non-accepting class, Grace and the other plan proponents have
indicated that they would nevertheless seek confirmation of the PI
Settlement Plan under the "cram down" provisions contained in
Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum
opinion -- as amended, the "Memorandum Opinion" -- overruling
certain objections to the PI Settlement Plan and finding, among
other things, that GUCs are not impaired under the PI Settlement
Plan. On the same date, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
regarding confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan -- as amended,
the "Confirmation Order". As entered on January 31, 2011, the
Confirmation Order contained recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and recommended that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware -- District Court -- approve the
Confirmation Order, and that the District Court confirm the PI
Settlement Plan and issue a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thereafter, on February 15, 2011,
the Bankruptcy Court issued an order clarifying its Memorandum
Opinion and the Confirmation Order -- Clarifying Order. Among
other things, the Clarifying Order provided that any references in
the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation Order to a
recommendation that the District Court confirm the PI Settlement
Plan were thereby amended to make clear that the PI Settlement
Plan was confirmed and that the Bankruptcy Court was requesting
that the District Court issue and affirm the Confirmation Order
including the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code. On March 11, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part a motion to reconsider the
Memorandum Opinion filed by BNSF Railway Company -- March 11
Order. Among other things, the March 11 Order amended the
Memorandum Opinion to clarify certain matters relating to
objections to the PI Settlement Plan filed by BNSF.

Although the Company is optimistic that, if it were to become
effective, the PI Settlement Plan would implement the terms of the
Settlement agreement, the Company can give no assurance that this
will be the case notwithstanding the Bankruptcy Court's
confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan. The terms of the PI
Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment. Moreover, the PI
Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of a number of
conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI Settlement
Plan and include, without limitation, the availability of exit
financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan by the
District Court. Additionally, various parties appealed or have
otherwise challenged the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation
Order, and the PI Settlement Plan may be subject to further appeal
or challenge before the District Court or other courts. The
appealing parties have designated various issues to be considered
on appeal, including, without limitation, issues relating to
releases and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan. The
District Court held hearings on June 28 and June 29, 2011, to hear
oral arguments in connection with appeals of the Memorandum
Opinion and the Confirmation Order. The District Court took the
matters under advisement and has not yet ruled on the appeals.

While the Bankruptcy Court has confirmed the PI Settlement Plan
and the District Court held hearings to consider oral argument
relating to appeals of the Memorandum Opinion and the Confirmation
Order, additional proceedings may be held before the District
Court or other courts to consider matters related to the PI
Settlement Plan, the Memorandum Opinion, and the Confirmation
Order. The Company does not know whether or when the District
Court will affirm the Memorandum Opinion or the Confirmation Order
or approve the PI Settlement Plan, or whether or when a final plan
of reorganization will become effective. Assuming that a final
plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or another
plan of reorganization) is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court,
approved by the District Court, and does become effective, the
Company does not know whether the final plan of reorganization
will be consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement or
if the other conditions to the Company's obligation to pay the
Settlement agreement amount will be met. If these conditions are
not satisfied or not waived by the Company, it will not be
obligated to pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement
agreement. However, if the Company does not pay the Settlement
agreement amount, the Company will not be released from the
various asbestos related, fraudulent transfer, successor
liability, and indemnification claims made against the Company and
all of these claims would remain pending and would have to be
resolved through other means, such as through agreement on
alternative settlement terms or trials. In that case, the Company
could face liabilities that are significantly different from its
obligations under the Settlement agreement. The Company cannot
estimate at this time what those differences or their magnitude
may be. In the event these liabilities are materially larger than
the current existing obligations, they could have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition and results
of operations. The Company will continue to review the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings -- including appeals and other proceedings
relating to the Memorandum Opinion, the Confirmation Order, or the
PI Settlement Plan -- as well as any amendments or changes to the
Memorandum Opinion, the Confirmation Order, or the PI Settlement
Plan, to verify compliance with the Settlement agreement.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical
and consumer applications.  Its operations generate about 54% of
its revenue from outside the United States and about 16% of its
revenue from developing regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,166 Open Cases vs. Central Hudson at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc., disclosed that its regulated electric and
natural gas subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation
continues to face 1,166 asbestos cases as of 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.

As of September 30, 2011, of the 3,330 asbestos cases brought
against Central Hudson, 1,166 remain pending.  Of the cases no
longer pending against Central Hudson, 2,009 have been dismissed
or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central
Hudson has settled 155 cases.  Central Hudson is presently unable
to assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits;
however, based on information known to Central Hudson at this
time, including Central Hudson's experience in settling asbestos
cases and in obtaining dismissals of asbestos cases, Central
Hudson believes that the costs which may be incurred in connection
with the remaining lawsuits will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of either CH Energy Group or Central Hudson.

Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc.'s
reportable operating segments are the regulated electric utility
business and regulated natural gas utility business of Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and the unregulated fuel
distribution business of Griffith Energy Services, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Pegs Remediation Costs at $2.8MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P., estimates
the cost associated with remediating all of its environmental
obligations at September 30, 2011, to be $2.8 million, 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.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P., is subject
to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to
real estate pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning
industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and
underground petroleum storage tanks. The Company estimates the
cost associated with remediating all of its environmental
obligations at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 to be $2.8
million and $2.9 million, respectively, all of which has been
accrued in accounts payable and other liabilities on the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company believes
that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental
matters will not have a material effect on its financial position,
liquidity, or operations; however, it can give no assurance that
existing environmental studies with respect to the shopping
centers have revealed all potential environmental liabilities;
that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any
material environmental condition not known to it; that the current
environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be
affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby
properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in
applicable environmental laws and regulations or their
interpretation will not result in additional environmental
liability to the Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Posts $495.5M Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $495.5
million at 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.

At September 30, 2011, the gross reserves for Asbestos &
Environmental losses were comprised of $148.9 million representing
case reserves reported by ceding companies, $103.3 million
representing additional case reserves established by the Company
on assumed reinsurance claims, $38.5 million representing case
reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance
claims, including Mt. McKinley, and $225.7 million representing
IBNR reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at September 30, 2011, the Company
had gross asbestos loss reserves of $495.5 million, or 96.0%, of
total A&E reserves, of which $396.3 million was for assumed
business and $99.2 million was for direct business.

Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival
ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, the
Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.0 years at
September 30, 2011.  These metrics can be skewed by individual
large settlements occurring in the prior three years and
therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of future payments.

Because the survival ratio was developed as a comparative measure
of reserve strength and does not indicate absolute reserve
adequacy, the Company considers, but do not rely on, the survival
ratio when evaluating its reserves.  In particular, the Company
notes that year to year loss payment variability can be material.
This is due, in part, to the Company's orientation to negotiated
settlements, particularly on its Mt. McKinley exposures, which
significantly reduces the credibility and utility of this measure
as an analytical tool.  In the third quarter of 2011, the Company
made asbestos net claim payments of $1.1 million to Mt McKinley
high profile claimants where the claim was either closed or a
settlement had been reached.  Such payments, which are non-
repetitive, distort downward the Company's three year survival
ratio.  Adjusting for such settlements, recognizing that total
settlements are generally considered fully reserved to an agreed
settlement, the Company considers that its adjusted asbestos
survival ratio for net unsettled claims is 8.9 years, which is
better than prevailing industry norms.

Everest Re Group, Ltd., a Bermuda company, through its
subsidiaries, principally provides reinsurance and insurance in
the U.S., Bermuda and international markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Defends Asbestos PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, 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, along with many other defendants, has been named in a
number of lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and
cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the
plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits
are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts
of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the
alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in
question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and
cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains
general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To
date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by
the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims
has been handled by the applicable insurance companies. In
addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from
the manufacturers of such wire and cable if it were determined
that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed
contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs.
In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated
with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if
its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

Houston Wire & Cable Company, through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Company, Advantage Wire & Cable and
Cable Management Services Inc., provides wire and cable and
related services to the U.S. market through nineteen locations in
12 states throughout the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Unit Defends Asbestos-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., is a named
defendant in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused
by installation of brakes that contained asbestos, 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.

In August 2010, the Company completed the purchase -- Acquisition
-- of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Automotive
Specialty Accessories and Parts -- WAG -- which it described as a
leader in the automobile aftermarket performance parts and
accessories market.

WAG is a named defendant in several lawsuits involving claims for
damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's
and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain
brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains
liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's
assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is
provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the
Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs
in connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., is a distributor of aftermarket
auto parts and accessories and was established in 1995. The
Company entered the e-commerce sector by launching its first
website in 2000 and currently derives the majority of its revenues
from online sales channels. The Company sells its products to
individual consumers through a network of websites and online
marketplaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Monitors Suit for Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity plc disclosed it will continue to monitor a
lawsuit seeking coverage related to approximately 3,900 existing
asbestos related bodily injury claims and future claims for
additional financial exposure, 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.

Establishing reserves for Asbestos and Environmental losses and
other mass tort claims involves considerably more judgment than
other types of claims due to, among other things, inconsistent
court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of
asbestos-related liabilities, and judicial interpretations that
often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of
coverage. The insurance industry continues to receive a
substantial number of asbestos-related bodily injury claims, with
an increasing focus being directed toward other parties, including
installers of products containing asbestos rather than against
asbestos manufacturers. This shift has resulted in significant
insurance coverage litigation implicating applicable coverage
defenses or determinations, if any, including but not limited to,
determinations as to whether or not an asbestos-related bodily
injury claim is subject to aggregate limits of liability found in
most comprehensive general liability policies. In response to
these continuing developments, management increased gross and net
A&E reserves during the second quarter of 2008 to reflect its best
estimate of A&E exposures. In 2009, one of the Company's insurance
companies was dismissed from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it
and other unrelated insurance companies. The suit involved issues
related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos related bodily
injury claims and future claims. The dismissal was the result of a
settlement of a disputed claim related to accident year 1984. The
settlement is conditioned upon certain legal events occurring
which will trigger financial obligations by the insurance company.
Management will continue to monitor the developments of the
litigation to determine if any additional financial exposure is
present.

Global Indemnity plc was incorporated on March 9, 2010 and is
domiciled in Ireland. Global Indemnity replaced the Company's
predecessor, United America Indemnity, Ltd., as the ultimate
parent company as a result of a re-domestication transaction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arabian American Unit Defends Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
An indirect subsidiary of Arabian American Development Company
continues to defend an asbestos-related lawsuit in Texas,
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 September 14, 2010, South Hampton Resources, Inc., received
notice of a lawsuit filed in the 58th Judicial District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas which was subsequently transferred to the
11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The suit
alleges that the plaintiff became ill from exposure to asbestos.
There are approximately 44 defendants named in the suit.  The
Company has placed its insurers on notice of the claim and plans
to vigorously defend the case.  No amounts have been accrued for
this claim.

South Hampton Resources, Inc., is owned by Texas Oil & Chemical
Company II, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Arabian American Development Company.

Arabian American Development Company was organized as a Delaware
corporation in 1967. The company's principal business activities
include developing mineral properties in Saudia Arabia and the
United States and manufacturing various petrochemical products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 8,156 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation disclosed that at September 30, 2011,
there were 8,156 open claims against it and its subsidiaries for
asbestos liability, 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.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation subsidiary -- Asbestos Liability -- and of an inactive
subsidiary in dissolution. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases
the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants,
often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

The table reflects approximate information about the claims for
Asbestos Liability against the subsidiaries and the Corporation,
along with certain asbestos claims asserted against the
inactive subsidiary in dissolution, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2011:

   Approximate open claims at end of period         8,156
   Gross settlement and defense costs         $16,927,000
   Approximate claims settled or dismissed          1,359

   * Included as "open claims" are approximately 1,688 claims
     classified in various jurisdictions as "inactive" or
     transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on multi-
     district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.

A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs were
reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period. In 2006, for the
first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the
Corporation's subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted
in a defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008
the California Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and
remanded the case back to the trial court.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products in the
United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, one manufactures forged hardened steel rolls while the
other produces finned tube and plate finned heat exchange coils
for the commercial and industrial construction, process, and
utility industries. The company was founded in 1929 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Pursues Suit vs. Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation continues to pursue its lawsuit
against certain insurance companies and underwriters pending in
Pennsylvania, 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.

Certain of the Corporation's subsidiaries and the Corporation have
an arrangement -- Coverage Arrangement -- with insurers
responsible for historical primary and some first-layer excess
insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability -- Paying Insurers.
Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for pending and future claims for Asbestos
Liability. The claims against the Corporation's inactive
subsidiary that is in dissolution proceedings, numbering
approximately 430 as of September 30, 2011, are not included
within the Coverage Arrangement. The Corporation believes that the
claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution are
immaterial.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
North America, Inc. -- Howden -- is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Corporation -- Products. The Coverage
Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to
the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of
the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at
any time for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In
general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products
will erode the coverage under the policies available to the
Corporation and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability
alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other
historical products of the Corporation and its subsidiaries
covered by the applicable policies.

On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation subsidiary filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against
thirteen domestic insurance companies, certain underwriters at
Lloyd's, London and certain London market insurance companies, and
Howden. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the
respective rights and obligations of the parties under excess
insurance policies not included within the Coverage Arrangement
that were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as
respects claims against the Corporation and its subsidiary for
Asbestos Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims
against Howden arising from the Products. Various counterclaims,
cross claims and third party claims have been filed in the
litigation.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products in the
United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, one manufactures forged hardened steel rolls while the
other produces finned tube and plate finned heat exchange coils
for the commercial and industrial construction, process, and
utility industries. The company was founded in 1929 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $202.7M Reserve at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2020 was
$202,776,000 at 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.

In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. -- HR&A -- a nationally recognized expert in the
valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in
estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted
future claims for Asbestos Liability. HR&A was not requested to
estimate asbestos claims against the inactive subsidiary in
dissolution or the former division, which the Corporation believes
are immaterial. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a
reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be
asserted through 2013 as at December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis was
updated in 2008, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as at December 31, 2008 for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2018. HR&A's analysis
was most recently updated in 2010, and additional reserves were
established by the Corporation as at December 31, 2010 for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2020. The methodology used by HR&A in its projection in
2010 of the operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and
unasserted potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which
is substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in
the 2006 and 2008 estimates, relied upon and included these
factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
     population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
     likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
     asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and
     the Corporation based on such epidemiological data and
     relevant claims history from January 1, 2008 to August 30,
     2010;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
     jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1,
     2008 to August 30, 2010 to determine the average settlement
     value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction
     of filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
     value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
     Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of
     inflation.

Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2010 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2020, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2020. This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts. For purposes of its condensed consolidated
financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2011,
the Corporation reviewed its current Asbestos Liability and
ultimately utilized the estimate by HR&A completed in 2010, as
updated by the Corporation to reflect its Asbestos Liability
expenditures through September 30, 2011.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors. These additional factors included the Coverage
Arrangement, self-insured retentions, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation retained in
2010 a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm to assist
the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that also
are among the several factors considered by the Corporation when
analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance
for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors considered
by the Corporation, and taking into account the Corporation's
analysis of publicly available information regarding the credit-
worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation estimated the
probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability and defense
costs through 2020. Although the Corporation believes that the
assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were reasonable
and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel and
insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are other
assumptions that could have been employed that would have resulted
in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2010 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2020
was $218,303,000, of which approximately 85% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2020 and future defense costs.  The reserve at
September 30, 2011 was $202,776,000. While it is reasonably
possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too
much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the
number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to
resolve them beyond 2020. Accordingly, no reserve has been
recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2020.

The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2010 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Coverage
Arrangement, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating
to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and
unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims, was $141,839,000
($130,003,000 as of September 30, 2011). The insurance receivable
recorded by the Corporation does not assume any recovery from
insolvent carriers, and substantially all of the insurance
recoveries deemed probable were from insurance companies rated
A -- (excellent) or better by A.M. Best Corporation. There can be
no assurance, however, that there will not be further insolvencies
among the relevant insurance carriers, or that the assumed
percentage recoveries for certain carriers will prove correct. The
$76,464,000 difference between insurance recoveries and projected
costs at December 31, 2010 ($72,773,000 at September 30, 2011) is
not due to exhaustion of all insurance coverage for Asbestos
Liability. The Corporation and the subsidiaries have substantial
additional insurance coverage which the Corporation expects to be
available for Asbestos Liability claims and defense costs the
subsidiaries and it may incur after 2020. However, this insurance
coverage also can be expected to have gaps creating significant
shortfalls of insurance recoveries as against claims expense,
which could be material in future years.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for Asbestos Liabilities
and insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on
currently known facts and strategy. The Corporation's actual
expenses or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or
lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Corporation's
or HR&A's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key
variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new
claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of
each such new claim, average annual defense costs, the resolution
of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk
with respect to the relevant insurance carriers. Other factors
that may affect the Corporation's Asbestos Liability and ability
to recover under its insurance policies include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The Corporation intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos
Liability and related insurance receivables as well as the
underlying assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any
adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the
uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these
regular reviews may result in the Corporation incurring future
charges; however, the Corporation is currently unable to estimate
such future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Corporation's
estimate of its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance
receivables could be material to operating results for the periods
in which the adjustments to the liability or receivable are
recorded, and to the Corporation's liquidity and consolidated
financial position.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products in the
United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, one manufactures forged hardened steel rolls while the
other produces finned tube and plate finned heat exchange coils
for the commercial and industrial construction, process, and
utility industries. The company was founded in 1929 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against
various asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, 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 a co-defendant in approximately 300 cases
asserting claims on behalf of approximately 1,230 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

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

There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes
of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth
case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0
million, for six separate causes of action and $5.0 million for
the seventh cause of action. In the seventh case, the plaintiff
has alleged against each named defendant compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $50.0 million, for four separate
causes of action.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify
any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the
Company or its subsidiaries. The Company intends to vigorously
defend these asbestos cases, and believes it will continue to be
successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not
possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature
of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and
although the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a
particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the
ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, liquidity or
results of operations. Among the factors management considered in
reaching this conclusion were: (a) the Company's historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many
cases have been improperly filed against one of its subsidiaries;
(c) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish
any causal relationship to the Company or its products or
premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants.

Additionally, the Company does not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
the Company's potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's
injury, if any.

The Company's cost of defending these lawsuits has not been
material to date and, based upon available information, its
management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related
lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, liquidity or financial position.

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through its subsidiaries, engages in the
industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing
business in the United States, Asia, Canada, Mexico, and Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Posts $3MM at Sept. 30 for Future Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., recorded a liability of $3.0
million at September 30, 2011, related to potential future
asbestos abatement activities at its properties, 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 believes that its properties are in compliance in all
material respects with all federal, state and local ordinances and
regulations regarding the handling, discharge and emission of
hazardous or toxic substances. As of September 30, 2011, the
Company has recorded in its financial statements a liability of
$3.0 million related to potential future asbestos abatement
activities at the Company's properties which are not expected to
have a material impact on its financial condition or results of
operations.  The Company has not been notified by any governmental
authority, and is not otherwise aware, of any material
noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic
substances in connection with any of the Company's present or
former properties. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any
liability related to hazardous or toxic substances. Nevertheless,
it is possible that the environmental assessments available to the
Company do not reveal all potential environmental liabilities. It
is also possible that subsequent investigations will identify
material contamination, that adverse environmental conditions have
arisen subsequent to the performance of the environmental
assessments, or that there are material environmental liabilities
of which management is unaware. Moreover, no assurances can be
given that (i) future laws, ordinances or regulations will not
impose any material environmental liability or (ii) the current
environmental condition of the properties has not been or will not
be affected by tenants and occupants of the properties, by the
condition of properties in the vicinity of the properties or by
third parties unrelated to the Company, the Operating Partnership
or the relevant property's partnership.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
self-managed, self-administered, fully-integrated real estate
investment trust that is engaged in the ownership, development,
acquisition, leasing, management and operation of regional
shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and office
properties.  Its shopping centers are located in 26 states, but
are primarily in the southeastern and midwestern United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging
injury from alleged exposure to asbestos fiber, 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 party to various legal proceedings and
administrative actions that are incidental to its operations.
These proceedings include personal injury cases, 87 of which are
pending as of October 31, 2011, in which the Company is one of
many defendants. Electricians have filed a majority of these
cases, primarily in Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking
compensatory, special, and punitive damages. Typically in these
cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a
heat-resistant asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors
had a small number of products that contained the fiber, but
ceased production of such products more than 20 years ago. Through
October 31, 2011, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 400 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with only a small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant. In the Company's opinion,
the proceedings and actions in which it is involved should not,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, operating results, or cash flows.
However, since the trends and outcome of this litigation are
inherently uncertain, the Company cannot give absolute assurance
regarding the future resolution of such litigation, or that such
litigation may not become material in the future.

Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a portfolio of
cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics. The
Company's products provide for the transmission of signals for
data, sound, and video applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Exposed to Personal Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation continues to
defend itself against asbestos-related personal injury claims,
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.

Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its
affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims have been made
against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction
Products Corporation -- RFPC -- and are based on a product sold by
RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in
RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.  The Company cannot,
however, assure that all these claims will be fully covered by
insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain
financially viable. The Company's ultimate legal and financial
liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other
pending litigation, cannot be estimated.

It is Management's belief that the potential range of loss for
asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably
determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including:
(1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos
litigation in particular. Despite this uncertainty, and although
the results of the Company's operations and cash flows for any
given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the
Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the
Company's overall financial position, results of operations and
cash flows. In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec's
and RFPC's history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos-
related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to
establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC's product;
and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any
identifiable injury or compensable loss.

More specifically, as to RFPC, Management's belief that any losses
due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also based
on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC's insurers
have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions.
The overall number of new claims being filed against RFPC has
dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new claims,
and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of
time to resolve. As to Wabtec and its divisions, Management's
belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact
is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners
of Wabtec's assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products
at issue. To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend
itself on this basis, including two arbitration decisions and a
judicial opinion, all of which confirmed Wabtec's position that it
did not assume any asbestos liabilities from the former owners of
certain Wabtec assets. Although Wabtec has incurred defense and
administrative costs in connection with asbestos bodily injury
actions, these costs have not been material, and the Company has
no information that would suggest these costs would become
material in the foreseeable future.

Wabtec is one of the world's largest providers of value-added,
technology-based products and services for the global rail
industry. The Company's products are found on virtually all U.S.
locomotives, freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well
as in approximately 100 countries throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,297 Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products in
approximately 1,297 pending claims involving approximately 1,843
individuals as of September 30, 2011, according to the Company's
November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30.

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

During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, the Company
recorded 251 new claims, 27 settlements, and 188 dismissals.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 304 new
claims, 29 settlements, and 207 dismissals.

ABI says it has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for
asbestos claims.  The total indemnity costs incurred to settle
claims during the nine months ended September 30, 2011, and the
year ended December 31, 2010, were $4.4 million and $5.7 million,
respectively, all of which were paid by ABI's first-layer excess
umbrella insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs.

In addition to coverage available under the first-layer excess
umbrella coverage -- Umbrella Coverage -- ABI has additional
excess liability insurance policies that should provide further
coverage if and when limits of certain policies within the
Umbrella Coverage exhaust.  While ABI expects the Umbrella
Coverage will result in the substantial majority of defense and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims against ABI being paid by its
insurance carriers for the foreseeable future, ABI may incur
uninsured costs related to asbestos claims, and those costs could
be material.  If ABI were to incur significant uninsured costs for
asbestos claims, or its insurance carriers failed to fund insured
costs for asbestos claims, such costs could have a material
adverse impact on its liquidity, financial condition and results
of operations.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, American Biltrite
Inc.'s major operations include its Tape Division, its jewelry
division K&M Associates L.P., and its Canadian division, which
consists of American Biltrite (Canada).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Liabilities Remain at $17.7MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were $17.70 million at both September 30, 2011, and December 31,
2010, according to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities
were $17,646,000 as of both June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, American Biltrite
Inc.'s major operations include its Tape Division, its jewelry
division K&M Associates L.P., and its Canadian division, which
consists of American Biltrite (Canada).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend numerous
cases commenced by former and current employees and various third
party persons alleging exposure to asbestos-containing materials,
according to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

HII and its predecessors in interest are defendants in a long-
standing series of cases filed in numerous jurisdictions around
the country wherein former and current employees and various third
party persons allege exposure to asbestos containing materials
while on or associated with HII premises or while working on
vessels constructed or repaired by HII.  The cases allege various
injuries including those associated with pleural plaque disease,
asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos
related conditions.  In some cases, in addition to the Company,
several of its former executive officers are also named
defendants.  In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage
is available to the Company for its liability and that of its
former executive officers.  Because of the varying nature of these
actions, and based upon the information available to the Company
to date, the Company believes it has substantive defenses in many
of these cases but can give no assurance that it will prevail on
all claims in each of these cases.  The Company believes that the
ultimate resolution of these cases will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Headquartered in Newport News, Virginia, Huntington Ingalls
Industries, Inc., on March 29, 2011, entered into a Separation and
Distribution Agreement with its former parent company, Northrop
Grumman Corporation, and Northrop Grumman's subsidiaries, under
which the Company was legally and structurally separated from
Northrop Grumman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Awaits Okay of Deal in Unit's Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is awaiting confirmation of its subsidiary's Chapter
11 plan of reorganization, which also includes a settlement of
asbestos-related claims against them, according to the Company's
November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Quigley Company, Inc. (Quigley), a wholly owned subsidiary, was
acquired by Pfizer Inc. in 1968 and sold products containing small
amounts of asbestos until the early 1970s.  In September 2004,
Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all
pending and future claims against Pfizer and Quigley in which the
claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products
containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust.  The Company recorded a
charge of $369 million pre-tax ($229 million after-tax) in the
third quarter of 2004 in connection with these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  In March 2005,
Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that
needed the approval of 75% of the voting claimants as well as the
Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In connection with that filing, Pfizer
entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more
than 80% of the individuals with claims related to Quigley
products against Quigley and Pfizer.  The agreements provide for a
total of $430 million in payments, of which $215 million became
due in December 2005 and has been and is being paid to claimants
upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from
each of the claimants.  The reorganization plan provided for the
establishment of a Trust (the Trust) for the evaluation and, as
appropriate, payment of all unsettled pending claims as well as
any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley
products.

In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to
solicit an amended reorganization plan for acceptance by
claimants.  According to the official report filed with the court
by the balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite votes were cast
in favor of the amended plan of reorganization.

The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect to
Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded in
December 2009.  In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined
to confirm the amended reorganization plan.  As a result of the
foregoing, Pfizer recorded additional charges for this matter of
approximately $1.3 billion pre-tax (approximately $800 million
after-tax) in 2010.  Further, in order to preserve its right to
address certain legal issues raised in the court's opinion, in
October 2010, Pfizer filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave
to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision denying confirmation.

In March 2011, Pfizer entered into a settlement agreement with a
committee (the Ad Hoc Committee) representing approximately 40,000
claimants in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding (the Ad Hoc
Committee claimants).  Consistent with the additional charges
recorded in 2010, the principal provisions of the settlement
agreement provide for a settlement payment in two installments and
other consideration:

   -- the payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the
      Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a first installment of $500
      million upon receipt by Pfizer of releases of  asbestos-
      related claims against Pfizer Inc. from Ad Hoc Committee
      claimants holding $500 million in the aggregate of claims
      (Pfizer began paying this first installment in June 2011);

   -- the payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the
      Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a second installment of $300
      million upon Pfizer's receipt of releases of asbestos-
      related claims against Pfizer Inc. from Ad Hoc Committee
      claimants holding an additional $300 million in the
      aggregate of claims following the earlier of the effective
      date of a revised plan of reorganization and April 6, 2013;

   -- the payment of the Ad Hoc Committee's legal fees and
      expenses incurred in this matter up to a maximum of $19
      million (Pfizer began paying these legal fees and expenses
      in May 2011); and

   -- the procurement by Pfizer of insurance for the benefit of
      certain Ad Hoc Committee claimants to the extent such
      claimants with non-malignant diseases have a future disease
      progression to a malignant disease (Pfizer procured this
      insurance in August 2011).

Following the execution of the settlement agreement with the Ad
Hoc Committee, Quigley filed a revised plan of reorganization and
accompanying disclosure statement with the Bankruptcy Court in
April 2011.  Under the revised plan, and consistent with the
additional charges recorded in 2010, the Company expects to
contribute an additional amount to the Trust, if and when the
Bankruptcy Court confirms the plan, of cash and non-cash assets
(including insurance proceeds) with a value in excess of $550
million.  The Bankruptcy Court must find that the revised plan
meets the requisite standards of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before
it confirms the plan.  The Company expects that, if approved by
claimants, confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District
Court and upheld on any subsequent appeal, the revised
reorganization plan will result in the District Court entering a
permanent injunction directing pending claims as well as future
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to Quigley products
to the Trust.  There is no assurance that the plan will be
confirmed by the courts.

In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company
in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to
certain insurance coverage which provides for payments to an
insurance proceeds trust established by Pfizer and Quigley over a
ten-year period of amounts totaling $405 million.  Most of these
insurance proceeds, as well as other payments from insurers that
issued policies covering Pfizer and Quigley, would be paid,
following confirmation, to the Trust for the benefit of present
unsettled and future claimants with claims arising from exposure
to Quigley products.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its best-known prescription products
include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs
Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra, as well as arthritis drug Enbrel,
depression treatment Effexor, and high-blood-pressure therapy
Norvasc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Suits Over Gibsonburg Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend numerous lawsuits seeking damages
for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing
asbestos sold by its subsidiary, according to the Company's
November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company
(Gibsonburg).  Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and
sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early
1970s.

There also is a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its best-known prescription products
include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs
Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra, as well as arthritis drug Enbrel,
depression treatment Effexor, and high-blood-pressure therapy
Norvasc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Unit Defends 68,000 Claims as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 68,000 asbestos-related claims are pending against a former
unit of Pfizer Inc.'s subsidiary as of September 30, 2011,
according to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing.  Warner-Lambert is an
affiliate of Pfizer.  In connection with the sale of American
Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser
for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and
other claims.  As of September 30, 2011, approximately 68,000
claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were
pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials.  Warner-Lambert is actively engaged
in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means to
resolve, these claims.

Warner-Lambert and American Optical brought a lawsuit in state
court in New Jersey against the insurance carriers that provided
coverage for the asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials
claims related to American Optical.  A majority of the carriers
subsequently agreed to pay for a portion of the costs of defending
and resolving those claims.  The litigation continues against the
carriers who have disputed coverage or how costs should be
allocated to their policies, and the court held that Warner-
Lambert and American Optical are entitled to payment from each of
those carriers of a proportionate share of the costs associated
with those claims.  Under New Jersey law, a special allocation
master was appointed to implement certain aspects of the court's
rulings.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its best-known prescription products
include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs
Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra, as well as arthritis drug Enbrel,
depression treatment Effexor, and high-blood-pressure therapy
Norvasc.


                           *********

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  * * *