CAR_Public/121116.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, November 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 228

                               Headlines

AEG LIVE: Faces Class Action Over Michael Jackson's Death
AK STEEL: Class Certification Bid Pending in Price-Fixing Suits
AK STEEL: Appeal From "Schumacher" Suit Ruling Still Pending
AK STEEL: To Pay $27.6MM Under Butler Retiree Deal in July 2013
AK STEEL: Trial in "Patrick Litigation" Rescheduled to Jan. 14

ANIMALS AUSTRALIA: Sheep Farmer Mulls Class Action
AU OPTRONICS: Dec. 6 Deadline Set for LCD Settlement Claims
CALIFORNIA: Sex Offenders' Class Action Faces Challenge
CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend Dr. Ari Weitzner's Lawsuits
DISCOVER BANK: Sued For Use of False Documentation to Collect Debt

ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Actos Diabetes Medication Suits
ELI LILLY: Still Defends Suits Related to Propoxyhene Products
FIFTH THIRD: Judge Transfers Class Action to Cincinnati Court
FOXBORO, MA: Nearly 1,000 People Join Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Authors Guild's Class Action

HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Wants "Nichols" Suit Remanded to State Court
J.B. HUNT: To File Summary Judgment Bids in Calif. Suit
JOHN MARSHALL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Misleading Job Prospects
LONG ISLAND, NY: LIPA Faces Class Action Over Power Outages
MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Alleged Defective M272 or M273 Engines

METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
NIELSEN-KELLERMAN: Recalls 7,500 Mikes Due to Shock/Burn Hazards
PAPA JOHN'S: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls 90,975 Lbs. of Bourbon Barbecue Sausages
POWERCOR: Denies Liability in Black Saturday Bushfire

PRAMAC AMERICA: Recalls 7,700 Powermate Sx5500 Portable Generators
REC-OUT LLC: Recalls 227 Columbus Folding Camping Chairs
RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Seeks Dismissal of Speed Camera Class Action
ROBERT MERICLE: Attorney Challenges "Kids for Cash" Settlement
SAMSUNG SDI: Accused of Fixing Prices of Lithium-Ion Batteries

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in California
SECURITAS SECURITY: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
VISA INC: NACS to Appeal Swipe Fee Settlement Prelim. Ruling

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit v. Government
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Overturns Ruling for Honeywell, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Dismisses Worker's Wrongful Death Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Corut Remands Suit v. Colgate-Palmolive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 34,423 Fibro Claims End Sept.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Still Defends 513 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Continues to Defend 755 Active Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Still Facing Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Still Defending Fibro Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Co., 38 Others Face Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Underground Steam Pipe Bursts, Spews Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Isa Mines, Others Face Fibro Exposure Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-French Leader Aubry Facing Charges Over Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Buildings Registry Endorser Dies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Orders Fibro Audit on All Power Companies

ASBESTOS UPDATE: VA SC Allows Claim Outside Workers' Comp. Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buried Fibro Stops Prince's Trust Garden Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Veterans With Mesothelioma Have Payout Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Book Launched on Finding Fibro at Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDep Slaps $28,000 Fine on Milford Firm

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Manufacturing Files for Bankruptcy Again
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Intends to Settle Claims With Cash
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii DOH Cites School on Certification Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ripped Fibro Disrupts Traffic in Sydney's West
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Pinecraven Ltd Worker Appeals to Former Peers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Asbestos Database Campaign Gets Support
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Sponsors CURE Media E-Book Release
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tring Road Fibro Scandal Council Worker Speaks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mill Street Bldg Case Sentencing Delayed Again


                          *********

AEG LIVE: Faces Class Action Over Michael Jackson's Death
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that hiring
Michael Jackson's personal doctor for what was to be the pop
icon's comeback tour "brought about the demise" of the singer and
the show, a class claims in court.

Mr. Jackson's personal assistant Michael Amir Williams filed a
class action against AEG Live LLC in Superior Court, claiming that
the class of concert workers would have earned $7.5 million if for
the series of 50 concerts at the O2 Arena in London making up the
"This Is It" tour.

AEG hired Mr. Jackson's physician, cardiologist Dr. Conrad Murray,
after Mr. Jackson "had problems keeping up with the pace of tour's
rigorous schedule and physical demands," the class says.

The promoter told The Associated Press that Dr. Murray negotiated
a salary of $150,000 to travel with Jackson to London.

For the final two months of Mr. Jackson's life, Dr. Murray
prescribed surgical anesthetic propofol to help the singer sleep.
Mr. Jackson died in his Holmby Hills residence on June 25, 2009,
roughly three weeks before he was scheduled to appear at the first
London concert.

The Los Angeles County coroner ruled that the singer had died of
acute propofol intoxication, and roughly a year ago a California
jury found Dr. Murray guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

According to the new class action, AEG "ignored" Dr. Murray's
"qualifications, experience, and medical specialty" focusing
instead "on cost and the benefits" the doctor could bring to the
concert promoter, including "insurance coverage for tour and
managing Michael Jackson so that he could meet all deadlines and
timetables AEG set in place."

Those "acts and omissions brought about the demise of Michael
Jackson," the class says.

In addition to breach of contract, the class alleges breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

It is represented by Fletcher Bernard Brown of Mountain House,
Calif.


AK STEEL: Class Certification Bid Pending in Price-Fixing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification is pending in the lawsuits
alleging price fixing by steel manufacturers, including AK Steel
Holding Corporation, according to the Company's October 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding.  The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197.  An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010.  On
December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed
in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.
The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Illinois.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back
to state court.  On March 26, 2012, the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the plaintiffs'
motion to remand and on March 28, 2012, granted the defendants'
motion to transfer venue of the Tennessee case to the Northern
District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs in that case filed a
petition to file an interlocutory appeal of the district court's
decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The defendants
have opposed that petition and the parties are awaiting the
court's decision on whether to grant that petition.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which
claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.  The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers
have conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and
maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products
in the United States.  On January 2, 2009, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss all of the claims set forth in the Complaints.
On June 12, 2009, the court issued an Order denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss.  Discovery has commenced.  On May
24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  A briefing schedule on the motion for class
certification has not yet been set.  In addition, no trial date
has been set.  AK Holding says it intends to contest this matter
vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.  The Company is
headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


AK STEEL: Appeal From "Schumacher" Suit Ruling Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed in its October 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, an appeal from the final
judgment in the class action lawsuit filed by William Schumacher
remains pending.

On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.  The
complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Internal
Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and
the other class members.  The plaintiff and the other purportedly
similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed
lawsuit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation
previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation
filed January 2, 2002, by John D. West) based on previous releases
of claims they had executed in favor of the Company.  There were a
total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior
litigation and the potential additional distributions to them at
issue in the litigation total approximately $3.0 million, plus
potential interest.  The defendants filed their answer to the
complaint on March 22, 2010.  On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff
filed his motion for class certification.  On January 24, 2011,
that motion was granted.  On March 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed a
motion for partial summary judgment.  After being fully briefed,
that motion was granted on June 27, 2011.  On October 12, 2011,
the court issued an opinion addressing the issue of pre-judgment
interest in which it held that pre-judgment interest should be
calculated using the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. Section
1961(a).  On December 12, 2011, the Court entered a Final Judgment
in an amount slightly in excess of $3.0 million, which includes
pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate through that date.
That amount has not been accrued.  The defendants have filed an
appeal from that Final Judgment.  The appeal has been briefed and
oral argument was held on October 10, 2012.  Defendants intend to
continue to contest this matter vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.  The Company is
headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


AK STEEL: To Pay $27.6MM Under Butler Retiree Deal in July 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's next scheduled payment in
fulfillment of its Butler Retiree Settlement will be on July 31,
2013, in the amount of $27.6 million, according to the Company's
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In 2009, the Company reached a final settlement (the "Middletown
Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on behalf of certain
retirees from the Company's Middletown Works relating to the
Company's other postretirement benefit ("OPEB") obligations to
such retirees.  For accounting purposes, a settlement of the
Company's OPEB obligations related to the Middletown Retiree
Settlement was deemed to have occurred in the first quarter of
2011 when the Company made the final payment of $65.0 million to a
Voluntary Employee Benefit Association ("VEBA") trust created
under the terms of that settlement.  In the first quarter of 2011,
the Company recognized the settlement accounting at the date of
the final payment and recorded a non-cash gain of $14.0 million in
the statement of operations.  The amount recognized was prorated
based on the portion of the total liability as of March 2008 that
was settled pursuant to the Middletown Retiree Settlement.

In January 2011, the Company reached a final settlement agreement
(the "Butler Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on
behalf of certain retirees from the Company's Butler Works
relating to the Company's OPEB obligations to such retirees (the
"Class Members").  Pursuant to the Butler Retiree Settlement, AK
Steel agreed to continue to provide company-paid health and life
insurance to Class Members through December 31, 2014, and to make
combined lump sum payments totaling $91.0 million to a VEBA trust
and to plaintiffs' counsel.  AK Steel agreed to make three cash
contributions to the VEBA trust as follows: $21.4 million on
August 1, 2011, and $31.7 million on July 31, 2012, both which
have been paid; and $27.6 million on July 31, 2013.  The balance
of the lump sum payments was paid to plaintiffs' attorneys on
August 1, 2011, to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect to
attorneys' fees.

Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA
trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Class Members under the
Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will have no
further liability for any claims incurred by the Class Members
after December 31, 2014, relating to their OPEB obligations.  The
VEBA trust will be utilized to fund all such future OPEB
obligations to the Class Members.  Trustees of the VEBA trust will
determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to the Class
Members.  The effect of the settlement on the Company's total OPEB
liability (prior to any funding of the VEBA trust created under
the terms of the settlement) was an increase in that liability of
approximately $29.6 million in the first quarter of 2011.  With
respect to this increase, a one-time, pre-tax charge of $14.2
million was recorded in the first quarter of 2011 to reverse
previous amortization of the prior plan amendment.  The remaining
portion was recognized in other comprehensive income and is being
amortized into earnings over approximately five years.  The
Company's OPEB liability will be reduced after each of the annual
contributions to the VEBA trust under the terms of the Butler
Retiree Settlement.  In addition, the OPEB liability will be
reduced by the ongoing benefit payment amounts through December
31, 2014.  For accounting purposes, a settlement of the Company's
OPEB obligations will be deemed to have occurred when the Company
makes the final benefit payments in 2014.

Certain reclassifications of prior-year amounts have been made to
conform to the current year presentation.  Amounts for pension and
OPEB expense (income) have been separately disclosed on the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.  These amounts
had been included as part of costs of products sold and selling
and administrative expenses in the prior year.  The Company has
also disclosed these amounts separately on the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.  The Company is
headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


AK STEEL: Trial in "Patrick Litigation" Rescheduled to Jan. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in one of the two lawsuits over surviving spouse benefits
has been rescheduled to begin January 14, 2013, according to AK
Steel Holding Corporation's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681 (the "Patrick Litigation").  The complaint alleges
that the defendants incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving
spouse benefits due to be paid to the plaintiffs under the
applicable pension plan.  On December 19, 2005, the defendants
filed their answer to the complaint.  The parties subsequently
filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether
the applicable plan language had been properly interpreted.  On
September 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to
the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied.
The defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Report
and Recommendation.  On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order
adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial
summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan
interpretation.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted by the Court on October 27, 2008.  The case has
proceeded since then with respect to discovery on the issue of
damages.  In November 2011, the plaintiffs submitted an expert
report in which their expert contends that the total damages,
excluding interest, for the class could total as much as $28.9
million.  The defendants believe that the damage calculation in
the plaintiffs' expert report is incorrect and intend to contest
that calculation.

On February 22, 2012, defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class with respect to the issue of damages or, in the alternative,
require individualized proof of damages.  That motion was denied
September 25, 2012.  Defendants also filed a motion to exclude
plaintiffs' expert report, which also was denied September 5,
2012.  Trial previously was scheduled to commence on September 17,
2012, but has been rescheduled to begin January 14, 2013.

On May 27, 2009, a case asserting a similar claim was filed
against AK Steel by Margaret Lipker in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050 (the
"Lipker Litigation").  The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation
alleged that AK Steel incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms.
Lipker's surviving spouse benefits due to be paid under the
applicable pension plan (which was a different plan from that at
issue in the Patrick Litigation).  The parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment.  On February 23, 2010, the Court in the
Lipker Litigation granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
and found that Ms. Lipker is entitled to a surviving spouse
benefit of approximately four hundred sixty-three dollars per
month.  AK Steel appealed that February 23, 2010, decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 11,
2010, Case No. 10-5298.  The issues in the appeal have been fully
briefed by the parties.  In addition, counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Patrick Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief
on July 20, 2010, on the ground that the decision in the Lipker
Litigation could impact the merits of the issues in the Patrick
Litigation.  The amicus curiae brief requested the Court of
Appeals to affirm the district court's decision in the Lipker
Litigation on the issue of plan interpretation and liability.
Oral argument in the appeal of the Lipker Litigation occurred on
October 5, 2011, but no decision by the Court of Appeals has been
issued yet.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.  The Company is
headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


ANIMALS AUSTRALIA: Sheep Farmer Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a prominent WA farmer has raised the
possibility of launching a class action lawsuit against an animal
rights activist who has been calling for the abolition of live
exports.

The campaign director of Animals Australia, Lyn White, has been
calling for the trade to be banned because she says it is
inhumane.

She says her calls were strengthened by footage shown on the ABC's
Four Corners program of the mistreatment of an Australian shipment
of sheep in Pakistan.

Great Southern farmer Bob Iffla says her actions are hurting
producers financially.

After a meeting of sheep farmers, he says he may take legal
action.

"I spoke to a few people and they were certainly very much for
that," he said.

"I think she's really sabotaged our industry and she hasn't really
fully worked it out that Australia is leading in animal welfare as
far as killing stock goes."

Mr. Iffla says Australian sheep farmers are responsible producers.

"The protein that we are growing is sustainable," he said.

"If they can't get the protein from the lamb they've got to go
elsewhere and I guess elsewhere might be to the sea and that is
not sustainable.

"I think the Lyn Whites of this world want to sort of wake up to
themselves and get a little bit smarter about the way they're
going about their business."


AU OPTRONICS: Dec. 6 Deadline Set for LCD Settlement Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rina Shaikh-Lesko, writing for Santa Cruz Sentinel, reports that
less than one month remains for consumers to file a claim in the
largest class-action settlement in U.S. history.

Shelley Peck, a Santa Cruz resident and one of the initial
plaintiffs in the case, is encouraging people to file claims
before the Dec. 6 deadline.

Six years after they were sued for price fixing in 2006, 10 LCD
screen manufacturers settled for $1.1 billion earlier this year.

The suit was filed on behalf of consumers in 24 states and the
District of Columbia against LCD manufacturers AU Optronics,
Chimei, Chunghwa, Epson, HannStar, Hitachi, LG, Sharp, Samsung and
Toshiba.  Several suits filed between December 2006 and early 2007
were consolidated into the massive lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in San Francisco.

Anyone who bought an LCD television, computer monitor or notebook
computer between January 1999 and December 2006 from one of the 10
manufacturers is entitled to a refund.  The minimum refund is $25
for each product and consumers can get multiple refunds if they
bought more than one item. Receipts are not required as proof of
purchase.

"Literally millions of people could make these claims," said San
Francisco-based lawyer Joseph Alioto, one of the lead attorneys
for the case.  Mr. Alioto said the case was set to go to trial in
May when the defendants settled.

Shelley Peck joined the case after she spent $5,000 on TVs and
computer monitors. She initially thought she got a good deal, but
when she realized the extent of the price fixing, she was upset
and asked her attorney, John Boone, what she could do about it.
She was surprised by the amount of the settlement, but was more
excited about the message it sent to companies considering similar
practices.

"It says to companies 'You can't do this, you have to stop,' " she
said.  "Other companies that come along will think twice."

Ms. Peck has filed her claim, but hasn't yet received her
reimbursement.  She doesn't know exactly how much she'll get, only
that it will be at least $100 for the four items she bought.

Ms. Peck and her attorney encouraged Santa Cruz and California
residents to file a claim.

"It's really easy, just go online and answer a few questions,"
said Boone.

Mr. Boone said he was sorry the case didn't go to trial.

"I wanted it to make a statement about anti-trust laws," he said.

He wasn't surprised it settled, though.  "The evidence was pretty
convincing," he said.


CALIFORNIA: Sex Offenders' Class Action Faces Challenge
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that human
trafficking opponents want to intervene in a class action brought
by two registered sex offenders fighting a California proposition.

The two offenders, represented by the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, claim that a
provision of Proposition 35 violates their civil rights in
requiring them to give police a list of their Internet activity.

In its bid to fight human trafficking, part of the voter-approved
initiative requires sex offenders to turn over their Internet
service providers, screen names and e-mail addresses.

Defenders of civil rights say this provision impedes the right of
sex offenders to engage in anonymous, online free speech.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson granted a temporary
injunction on the section last week.

On Nov. 12, Judge Henderson received a motion to intervene from
Daphne Phung, founder of the nonprofit California Against Slavery,
and Silicon Valley attorney Chris Kelly of the Safer California
Foundation.  Ms. Phung and Mr. Kelly officially backed Proposition
35.

The pair say that the sex-offender plaintiffs do not oppose such
intervention, but that they want to assurances that their
anonymity will not be compromised.

"Plaintiffs' concerns do not present a legitimate basis for
opposing or restricting proponents' intervention," according to
Ms. Phung and Mr. Kelly's motion.  "These plaintiffs have come to
this court seeking to overturn the will of an overwhelming
majority of California voters who want Proposition 35 to protect
them, their children, and their communities from registered sex
offenders who are online sexual predators.  Although plaintiff sex
offenders have the right to a full hearing on their claims in this
court, plaintiffs go too far when they seek to restrict the
ability of the People of California -- who speak through a ballot
measure's official proponents in post-election litigation -- to be
fully heard on all of the issues that plaintiffs bring before this
court."

It adds: "It strains credulity to suggest that the voters of
California should have less voice in that matter than the
registered sex offenders from whom they seek protection, for any
reason, let alone the mere convenience of those offenders."

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene; Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof in Doe, et al. v.
Harris, et al., Case No. 12-cv-05713 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/13/roe.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Harrison, Esq.
          Margaret Prinzing, Esq.
          REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, LLP
          201 Dolores Ave.
          San Leandro, CA  94577
          Telephone: (510) 346-6200
          E-mail: harrison@rjp.com
                  mprinzing@rjp.com


CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend Dr. Ari Weitzner's Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. continues to defend itself from lawsuits filed by
Dr. Ari Weitzner in Massachusetts and New York, according to the
Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against
Cynosure under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
The complaint alleges that Cynosure violated the TCPA by sending
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other
recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipients.  Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited
facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per
facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per
facsimile for knowing or willful violations.  Based on discovery
in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three
million facsimiles were sent on Cynosure's behalf by a third party
to approximately 100,000 individuals.  In 2008, the plaintiff
served, and the Court held a hearing regarding a motion for class
certification.  In 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing the
complaint without prejudice for Dr. Weitzner's failure to
prosecute the case and subsequently allowed a plaintiff motion for
relief from the dismissal order.

In January 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision denying
the class certification motion.  This matter remains pending and
the Court had scheduled a November 6, 2012 status conference,
regarding Dr. Weitzner's individual claims.

On July 23, 2012, Dr. Weitzner filed a new purported class action,
based on the same operative facts and asserting the same claims as
the Massachusetts action, in federal court in the Eastern District
of New York.  During a preliminary hearing in this New York
federal action on September 20, 2012, the Court summarily denied
Dr. Weitzner's request that the Massachusetts action be stayed,
and allowed Cynosure's request for leave to move to dismiss the
New York federal action on multiple grounds.

At this time, the Company says it is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of this matter.


DISCOVER BANK: Sued For Use of False Documentation to Collect Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Discover Bank and its
attorneys use "knowingly false documentation" to try to collect
alleged credit-card debts, a class action claims in Federal Court.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Actos Diabetes Medication Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to the diabetes medication, Actos, according to the
Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

The Company has been named along with Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, and Takeda affiliates (together "Takeda") as a
defendant in product liability cases in the U.S. related to the
diabetes medication Actos, which the Company co-promoted with
Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006.  Under the
Company's agreement with Takeda, the Company will be indemnified
by Takeda for its losses and expenses in connection with the U.S.
litigation in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  In
addition, the Company has been named along with Takeda as a
defendant in two purported product liability class actions in
Ontario, Canada (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al. and Brewer et al. v. Takeda Canada et al.),
and one in Quebec, Canada (Jimmy Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et
al.).  The Company has also been named along with Takeda in an
individual action for damages in Ontario, Canada (Antonacci v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, et al.).  All are related to
Actos, which the Company promoted in Canada until 2009.  The
Company believes these claims are without merit and is prepared to
defend against them vigorously.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Company provides
answers, through medicines and information, for some of the
world's most urgent medical needs.


ELI LILLY: Still Defends Suits Related to Propoxyhene Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is currently a defendant in a variety of
other product liability lawsuits involving primarily Darvon(R),
Prozac(R), and Actos(R).

Along with several other manufacturers, the Company has been named
as a defendant in litigation in the U.S. related to the analgesic
Darvon and related formulations of propoxyphene.  These cases
generally allege various cardiac injuries. There are approximately
70 cases pending involving approximately 210 claimants.  Most of
these cases have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation
in the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Two lawsuits have been filed
as putative class actions in federal courts in Louisiana seeking
to assert product liability claims on behalf of U.S. residents who
ingested propoxyphene and allegedly sustained personal injuries
(Ballard, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al. and Lewis v. Eli
Lilly and Company and Xanodyne).  The Company transferred the U.S.
regulatory approvals and all marketing rights to its propoxyphene
products in 2002 to aaiPharma Inc., which subsequently transferred
all such approvals and marketing rights to Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The Company believes these claims are
without merit and is prepared to defend against them vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Company provides
answers, through medicines and information, for some of the
world's most urgent medical needs.


FIFTH THIRD: Judge Transfers Class Action to Cincinnati Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Newberry, writing for Business Courier, reports that it's not
clear if a courtroom closer to home will help Fifth Third Bank's
legal case, but it ought to at least be more convenient.

A federal judge in Cleveland last week transferred a class-action
lawsuit against the Cincinnati-based bank from the Northern
District of Ohio to U.S. District Court in Cincinnati.

The class-action complaint, as the Business Courier reported in
September, claims Fifth Third's Early Access loan program violates
Ohio law and fraudulently charges excessive interest rates.

Fifth Third contends it charges only a cash advance fee, which is
exempt from state law governing interest rates, and clearly states
how the fee is calculated. It has moved for dismissal.

Both sides will now be making their arguments in Cincinnati rather
than in Cleveland.  U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko in
Cleveland ruled that Cincinnati would be a more convenient forum,
noting that none of the original named plaintiffs are from Ohio.
He also said it was disingenuous for the plaintiffs' lawyers to
tout Cleveland as an "appropriate and well-suited" venue then file
a motion asking to be excused from attending a case management
conference there "because of significant cost, significant loss of
time and undue hardship."

The plaintiffs' lawyers include attorneys from the Washington,
D.C.-based firm Tycko & Zavareei, which was one of the firms
involved in a $9.5 million settlement of another class action over
Fifth Third's overdraft fees.

That case, settled in 2010, was litigated in Chicago.


FOXBORO, MA: Nearly 1,000 People Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Joe Shortsleeve, writing for WBZ-TV, reports that nearly 1,000
people claim police officers violated their civil rights by
placing them in protective custody simply because it appeared they
had been drinking.  One of those people is a police officer.

"I sat at that bench with my hand handcuffed to a bar for six
hours," says Michael Burgess.

Mr. Burgess is a local police officer who was placed into
protective custody by Foxboro Police.  He was taken out of line as
he walked into a concert at Gillette Stadium in 2011.

"I did nothing wrong that night," says Mr. Burgess.  "I was not
disorderly.  I was not argumentative.  I basically complied with
what they wanted me to do.  I was in full control of myself."

Mr. Burgess is now one of the nearly 1,000 people suing Foxboro
and its police chief for its policy which lawyers claim places
people in protective custody simply because they might appear
tipsy.  The law says you must be incapacitated to be detained.

When Bruce Springsteen played Gillette Stadium and when Country
Fest occurred last August, hundreds of people ended up court.
Some were arrested, hundreds more placed in custody.

Attorney Howard Friedman filed the class lawsuit.

"They are taking people into custody who are simply intoxicated,
who are not a danger to property of person and holding them far
longer than they should," says Mr. Friedman.

Mr. Friedman say the town's policy is basically unlawful arrest.

Lindsey Schmidt is also suing.

She says she stumbled while wearing a new pair of cowboy boots and
that was it.

"At that time, the police officer took my purse and my phone,"
says Ms. Schmidt.  "My purse had my concert ticket and my
friend's.  He would not allow her to have her concert ticket
either.  He took both of them."

Last summer, Foxboro's Chief O'Leary defended the policy saying
alcohol consumption causes situations to spiral.

WBZ spoke with attorney Doug Louison who represents Foxboro and
its police chief.  He says the town's policy is constitutional and
carefully thought out.  He says the town was recently sued after
two women died in a drunken driving crash after leaving a concert
parking lot.


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Authors Guild's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that the Authors Guild
shouldn't be able to bring a class-action against Google for its
book digitization project, the company argues in new papers filed
late on Nov. 9 with an appeals court.

Google contends that class-action status isn't appropriate for
several reasons, including that individual authors may feel
differently than the Authors Guild about the book project.  The
tech company says that many writers "benefit from the Google Books
project and want to see it continue, because it makes their books
more widely known and accessible."

The company says the "clash of interests" between the Authors
Guild and individual writers should bar a class-action.

The search giant -- which has pressed this argument for months --
earlier commissioned a survey of more than 800 authors about their
opinions regarding the project.  Most respondents, 58%, said they
approved of Google scanning their books, while 28% were neutral
and 14% objected.  What's more, nearly one in five, or 19%, say
they have or would benefit from Google's scans, while 8% said they
would be harmed, and 74% said they didn't believe that the project
would affect them financially.

Google also says that a class-action lawsuit doesn't make sense
because liability will depend on whether it has a fair-use
defense.  That question can require book-by-book analysis --
though not always.  Consider, several weeks ago the Authors Guild
suffered a significant defeat in a separate lawsuit against five
universities that worked with Google to digitize millions of
books.  In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Howard Baer in New
York ruled that the digitization project is protected by fair-use
principles.

The legal dispute between the Authors Guild and Google dates to
2005, when the Authors Guild alleged in court that Google
infringed copyright by scanning around 20 million books from
libraries and displaying snippets of some of them in its search
engine, in response to queries.

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin ruled earlier this year that
the case could move forward as a class-action.  Judge Chin said it
wouldn't be fair to require writers to sue Google individually.
"When Google copied works, it did not conduct an inquiry into the
copyright ownership of each work; nor did it conduct an
individualized evaluation as to whether posting 'snippets' of a
particular work would constitute 'fair use,'" Judge Chin wrote in
May. "Google cannot now turn the tables and ask the Court to
require each copyright holder to come forward individually."

Google appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit, which agreed to
take the case and stayed all trial court proceedings until the
class-action question is resolved.

Both sides seem to have a point here.  On one hand, it's not
realistic to expect individual authors to sue Google one-by-one --
especially given the exorbitant cost of litigation.  At the same
time, the Authors Guild's bid for class-action status seems
problematic given that, at least according to Google, many
individual authors support the digitization project.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Wants "Nichols" Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it filed last month a
motion to remand a class action lawsuit back to the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March
28, 2003, by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth
Corp.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company, some of its former
officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to
overstate and misrepresent its earnings and financial position.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
This case was consolidated with the action captioned Tucker v.
Scrushy for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed
in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on November 9, 2010, to which the Company
responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010.
During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against the
Company.  Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against
HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit.

On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action.  One of
those named officers removed the case to federal court on
September 14, 2012.  The Company filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court on October 12, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
case.  Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current
facts and circumstances as the Company understands them, the
nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to
date, and the nature and scope of the defense the Company
continues to mount, the Company does not believe an adverse
judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also
not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of
possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or
settlement of this case.


J.B. HUNT: To File Summary Judgment Bids in Calif. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. will file motions for summary
judgment in the class action lawsuits pending in California,
according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other items.  Further proceedings have
been stayed in these matters pending the California Supreme
Court's decision in a case unrelated to the Company's involving
similar issues.  In May 2012, the California Supreme Court issued
its decision in this unrelated case.  The Company says it intends
to file motions for summary judgment prior to allowing the case to
proceed as well as motions to decertify the class.  The Company
cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits.


JOHN MARSHALL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Misleading Job Prospects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hansen, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a judge has
dismissed class-action lawsuits against two Chicago law schools by
graduates who alleged that they were tricked into attending by the
schools' misleading post-graduation job prospects.

Cook County, Ill., Circuit Judge Mary Mikva, in a pair of rulings
Friday, threw out the alumni suits against John Marshall Law
School and Chicago-Kent College of Law, the Chicago Tribune and
the National Law Journal report.

Judge Mikva dismissed the suits with prejudice, meaning that the
claims cannot be refiled.

The two cases were among the more than a dozen suits filed that
accuse law schools of luring prospective students into attending
by publishing misleading job statistics.

The courts have now dismissed five of those cases, including one
against DePaul University College of Law, one against Thomas M.
Cooley Law School, and one against New York Law School.

The schools maintain that the employment data they published
complies with the requirements of the ABA Section of Legal
Education and Admissions to the Bar and the National Association
for Law Placement.

John Marshall Dean John Corkery, in a prepared statement, said the
judge's ruling vindicates the school's position that its reporting
of post-graduate employment statistics did not violate the rights
of any of its students.  "John Marshall will continue its proud
tradition of providing a quality education for its students and of
preparing them to succeed in their careers and in life."

Jeanne Hartig, vice president for communications at Chicago-Kent,
told the National Law Journal the school was "grateful" and
"gratified" by the judge's ruling.  "We maintained from the
beginning that the case did not have merit, and we are delighted
that the judge agreed," she said.

Chicago lawyer Ed Clinton, who represented the John Marshall
graduates, could not be reached for comment.  But Jesse Strauss,
one of three attorneys coordinating the national litigation, said
the team plans to appeal.  The dismissal of the law suit against
New York Law School has already been appealed, the National Law
Journal reported.


LONG ISLAND, NY: LIPA Faces Class Action Over Power Outages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBSNewYork reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Long Island Power Authority and its partner National Grid on
Nov. 13 as thousands of Long Island residents are still without
power more than two weeks after Superstorm Sandy.

Two Nassau County LIPA customers are the first plaintiffs to join
the lawsuit claiming breach of contract, gross negligence and
fraud.

"We're bringing a class action because I believe somewhere between
750,000 and 1 million people have been one way or another damaged
by the ineptitude of this organization," said attorney Ken
Mollins.

Besides seeking civil damages, Mr. Mollins said he has also filed
a complaint with the New York State Inspector General seeking
possible criminal prosecution.

"To investigate the way money has been spent by LIPA and I say to
the Inspector General -- if it's criminal, I want arrests.  If
it's civil, I want damages," he said.  "We want accountability."

The utility has been sharply criticized for leaving Long Islanders
in the cold and dark for more than two weeks without estimates or
clear instructions.

As of Nov. 13, about 19,000 customers were still without power.

"I want to see my lights back on, I want to see gas coming into
the house so I can get some heat," said Island Park resident Larry
Kushel.  "I'm living in the dark."

"It's like banging your head against a wall," said Bellmore
resident Marietta Pollack. "It's a nightmare that doesn't end."

Many customers have demanded a company shakeup while elected
officials have called for a federal takeover of the restoration.

"It is a system that doesn't work in this type of crisis," Gov.
Andrew Cuomo said on Nov. 12.  "It doesn't.  It is a system from a
different time and a different place."

LIPA said it's in the homestretch and on track to restore power to
99 percent of its 1.1 million outages by on Nov. 13.

But the remaining one percent -- around 10,000 homes -- will take
more time and that doesn't include 46,000 flooded homes that have
damaged equipment.

For those, LIPA has now agreed to let private electricians certify
repairs and plug in meters to speed up restoration.

"We're focused on restoration and we'll continue to focus on
restoration of those remaining customers and there will be plenty
of time to assess performance," said John Bruckner, president of
National Grid, which contracts with LIPA for service and
maintenance.

Mr. Bruckner said about 15,000 people are working on restoration,
including 6,400 linemen from all over the U.S. and Canada.

But that doesn't mean much for those residents who have spent 15
days in the dark.

"This is ridiculous," said Massapequa resident Gary Clark.  "Shock
and a shame."

LIPA denied it has a supply shortage or that it was unprepared.
There has been no immediate response from the company regarding
the lawsuit.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Alleged Defective M272 or M273 Engines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Majeed Seifi and Tracey Deakin, On Behalf Of Themselves And All
Others Similarly Situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No.
3:12-cv-05493 (N.D. Calif., October 24, 2012) is brought on behalf
of all owners and lessees within California of Mercedes vehicles
equipped with either the M272 or M273 engines.

The Plaintiffs allege that the defect in the subject vehicles
appears to be attributable to a defect in the materials selection
and the manufacture or design of the balance shaft gear (in the
case of the M272 engines) or the idle gear (in the case of the
M273 engines) that causes the sprockets on the balance shaft in
the M272 engine to wear prematurely and excessively, and likewise
to cause the guide on the idler gear that drives the timing chain
in the M273 engine to wear prematurely and excessively.

Mr. Seifi is a resident of Alameda County, California, and the
owner of a 2006 Mercedes ML-350.  He noticed that the vehicle's
"Check Engine Light" illuminated, and later found out that the
vehicle had a defective balance shaft gear that would require
replacement of the balance shaft at a cost of approximately
$6,000.  Mr. Deakin is a resident of San Luis Obispo, California,
and the original owner of a 2006 Mercedes ML-350 that he purchased
from an authorized Mercedes dealer on approximately December 2006.
His vehicle's "Check Engine Light" illuminated and the vehicle
began misfiring without prior warning.

Mercedes-Benz is a limited liability corporation based in
Montvale, New Jersey.  Mercedes-Benz is a subsidiary of Daimler,
Inc., the manufacturer of Mercedes-branded vehicles.  Founded in
1965, Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution and
marketing of Mercedes and Maybach automobiles within the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000
          Facsimile: (201) 307-1086
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Metropolitan Health Networks
is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Humana,
for $11.25 or $850 million, according to a shareholders' class
action in Palm Beach County Court.


NIELSEN-KELLERMAN: Recalls 7,500 Mikes Due to Shock/Burn Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nielsen-Kellerman Co., of Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, announced a
voluntary recall of about 7,500 microphones.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The metal boom of the microphone can conduct electricity from an
exposed speaker wire or connector and shock or burn the user.

Nielsen-Kellerman has received reports of three incidents in which
the users reported second-degree burns where the metal boom
contacted their face.

This recall includes NK R2 microphones manufactured before
September 1, 2012.  The recalled product is a microphone designed
to be used by the navigator (coxswain) of rowed racing boats to
direct the rowers.  It is made of a rubber U-shaped base attached
to a blue headband.  A black metal microphone boom is attached to
one end of the U and a cable with a flat, rubber-covered connector
is attached to the other end.  The microphones are used with the
Cox Box and Cox Box Mini voice amplifiers.  The NK logo appears on
the headband.  Recalled microphones have metal booms that are not
covered by rubber and do not have a yellow warning tag on the
cable.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13035.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Nielsen-Kellerman Co. online and authorized NK
dealers worldwide for about $99.

Consumers should immediately stop using the R2 Microphones and
return them to NK for a free replacement.  Nielsen-Kellerman may
be reached at (800) 784-4221, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Thursday in the U.S. or (Country Code)-1-610-
447-1555, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Thursday outside the U.S.; or http://www.NKhome.com/and click on
Support, then choose Product Repairs or Product Registration for
more information.


PAPA JOHN'S: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heyrich Kalish McGuigan PLLC disclosed that on November 9, 2012,
United States District Court Judge John C. Coughenour certified a
nationwide class action case against Papa John's International,
Inc. with potential damages over $250 million.  The lawsuit is
brought on behalf of Papa John's customers across the United
States who were sent unwanted text messages that advertised Papa
John's pizza.

The ruling paves the way for what could be one of the largest
damages awards ever recovered under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  The class action lawsuit contends that 500,000
illegal text messages were sent to Papa John's customers across
the country.  Papa John's customers could be awarded $500 or more
in statutory damages for each text message.

Erin Chutich, one of the plaintiffs in the case, stated, "After I
ordered from Papa John's, my telephone started beeping with text
messages advertising pizza specials.  Papa John's never asked
permission to send me text message advertisements."  Ms. Chutich
added, "Hopefully, this will be an important victory for
consumers.  Our lawsuit is about keeping spam from spreading from
our e-mail to our cell phones."

Attorneys representing Papa John's customers agreed.  Donald W.
Heyrich, who represents consumers in spam text message lawsuits,
stated, "Many customers complained to Papa John's that they wanted
the text messages to stop, and yet thousands of spam text messages
were sent week after week."  Mr. Heyrich added, "This should be a
wakeup call to advertisers.  Consumers do not want spam on their
cell phones.  If you do not have permission from your customers,
do not send them text messages.  It's as simple as that."

Heyrich Kalish McGuigan PLLC represents consumers in class actions
regarding spam text messages and illegal telemarketing.  A copy of
the court decision is published at
http://www.telemarketingattorneys.com


PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls 90,975 Lbs. of Bourbon Barbecue Sausages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, a Fort Madison, Iowa establishment, is
recalling approximately 90,975 pounds of bourbon barbecue sausage
products because they may have been underprocessed, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 5-oz. cans of "Armour Vienna Sausage Bourbon BBQ Flavored"
     (24 per case).

Each can bears the establishment number "P-4247" inside the USDA
mark of inspection, a UPC Code of "54100 93824" and a Use By date
of September 7, 2015.  The products subject to recall were
produced on September 7, 2012, and sold to retail establishments
nationwide.  The retail distribution list is available on FSIS'
Web site at:

   www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

The problem was discovered by the Company.  The Company believes
the problem occurred as a result of processing time
miscalculations that caused the product to be undercooked during
the production process.  FSIS and the Company have received no
reports of illnesses due to consumption of these products.  Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media with questions about the recall should contact the Company
at (973) 541-8620.  Consumers with questions about the recall
should contact the Company at 1 (888) 299-7646 from 9:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Wal-mart stores nationwide received bourbon
barbecue sausage products that have been recalled by Pinnacle
Foods Group LLC.

The FSIS says this list may not include all retail locations that
have received the recalled product or may include retail locations
that did not actually receive the recalled product.  Therefore,
the FSIS says, it is important that consumers use the product-
specific identification information available at product recall
notice, in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or
poultry products in the consumers' possession to see if they have
been recalled.


POWERCOR: Denies Liability in Black Saturday Bushfire
-----------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Victorian Supreme Court has been told
there is nothing to suggest Powercor caused the Weerite-Pomborneit
bushfire, in the state's south-west, on Black Saturday.

A class action is being heard in Warrnambool.

The fire in 2009 burnt 1,000 hectares of farmland and destroyed
sheds, fencing and machinery.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Pomborneit Country Fire
Authority Captain Terry Place, whose dairy farm was damaged in the
blaze.

He says the fire started when live conductors between two power
poles clashed.

If Powercor is found to be liable, Mr. Place and about 30 others
will be eligible for compensation.

Powercor denies its infrastructure caused the bushfire and that it
breached any duty of care.

Powercor's lawyers argued clashing could not have caused a fire of
that degree and the blaze could have started in many ways.

Lawyers for the plaintiff were set to make their closing
submissions on Nov. 13.


PRAMAC AMERICA: Recalls 7,700 Powermate Sx5500 Portable Generators
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Pramac America LLC, of Kearney, Nebraska, and
manufacturer, Am Pride Chongqing Senci IMP & EXP Trade Co., of
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 7,700 Powermate Sx
5500 portable generators.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The fuel filter on this generator allows gasoline to leak, posing
a fire hazard.

Pramac America has received 51 reports of fuel filter leakage.  No
fires or injuries have been reported.

The recalled portable generators have "Powermate 5500" printed on
the side of the black generator with wheels.  These generators
were sold under the model name Sx5500 and model number PM0125500.
Both are printed on a plate on the rear of the generators with
serial numbers of the recalled units ranging from K003xxxxxQ
through K090xxxxxQ.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13036.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot stores in northeast, mid-west and
southeast United States from February 2012 through August 2012 for
about $550.

Consumers should stop using these recalled portable generators and
contact Pramac America to receive a free repair kit including a
replacement filter, hose and hose clamps for fuel line.  Pramac
America LLC at (800) 445-1805 from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday or http://www.powermate.com/and click
on the Generator tab and then the Expert Advice followed by the
Service Notification link for more information.


REC-OUT LLC: Recalls 227 Columbus Folding Camping Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Rec-Out LLC, of Atlanta, Georgia, and manufacturer,
Beststar Tourist Products Co., Ltd., of China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 227 Folding Camping Chairs.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Chairs were found to contain a variety of molds that could cause
respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health
problems or who have impaired immune systems.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Basin model Columbus(TM) folding camping
chairs, identified with style # CC3009-N on a label attached to
the side of the seat.  They are blue, foam-padded, polyester
chairs with a cushioned seat and back.  The chairs have adjustable
side straps and two additional straps used as handles to carry the
chair when folded.  "Columbus" appears on the outer side of the
back of the seat, above a mesh pocket.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13034.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big 5 Sporting Goods stores from April 2012 through
October 2012 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to any Big 5 Sporting Goods location for a full
refund.  Consumer contact: Rec-Out; toll-free at (888) 885-9129,
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday for
more information.  Consumers can also e-mail the firm at
customerservice@rec-out.com


RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Seeks Dismissal of Speed Camera Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sandoval, writing for Gazette.net, reports that Riverdale
Park officials are hoping a judge will throw out a $5 million
class-action lawsuit related to speed camera ticket procedures.

The August lawsuit was filed in Prince George's County Circuit
Court by an attorney representing three Maryland drivers, who the
suit claims were issued $40 tickets by speed cameras operating
with technology that did not comply with state law.  One of the
drivers was given a ticket that contained a forged signature
containing the name of Riverdale Park Police Cpl. Clay Alford, the
lawsuit contends.

In a motion filed on Oct. 31 to dismiss an amended version of the
lawsuit, the town's lawyers dispute that the plaintiffs were
issued tickets that contained forged signatures, and say the speed
cameras in the town were operating in full compliance with the law
and underwent annual calibration checks with an independent
laboratory to ensure that they were operating properly.

E-mails from May 19, 2010, attached to the original complaint
allegedly show Mr. Alford and two civilian workers in the police
department planning how to split up the work of signing off 2,900
speed camera citations issued by the town.  Timothy Leahy, who is
representing the three Maryland residents, said Mr. Alford was the
only officer authorized to sign the citations, and the civilian
workers used his log-in information to the town's citation system
to sign off on the tickets.

In addition, an amended complaint filed by Mr. Leahy said between
February 17, 2011 and April 3, 2011, Mr. Alford was out on leave
from the town's police department.  Roy I. Chamberlin, a driver
listed as a plaintiff in the suit, was issued a speed camera
citation on February 17, which is signed by Mr. Alford, the
complaint says.

Mr. Leahy said this indicates that someone other than Mr. Alford
signed Mr. Chamberlin's ticket using his log-in information.

Mayor Vernon Archer said he could not comment on the case because
it is active litigation.  Kevin Karpinski, an attorney
representing the town, said he could not comment on the facts of
the case.

Mr. Leahy said based on witness testimony by Mr. Alford, he
estimates that about two-thirds of the speeding tickets that were
issued to residents contained signatures that were forged by
civilian workers in the city's police department.  Maryland's 2006
speed camera law requires each ticket be signed by a law-
enforcement officer.

The law also requires that there be a fixed object in photographs
from speed cameras that allow an observer to clearly judge how
fast a driver was going.

Mr. Leahy said the town's speed cameras did not take pictures
containing a fixed object.  The town's contractor that installed
the speed cameras, Optotraffic LLC, a division of Sigma Space
Corp. based in Greenbelt, are listed as defendants in the lawsuit
along with the town because both knew there were forged signatures
on some tickets and that the speed camera equipment in the town
did not follow Maryland law, Mr. Leahy said.

"People should be saddened at their elected representatives and
police that no one has been brought to account for this," Mr.
Leahy said.

Tim Ayers, spokesman for Optotraffic, said the company's cameras
have a built-in laser system called LIDAR that creates a fixed
point for the camera to judge whether a driver is speeding.  The
camera shoots a laser beam that picks up a driver's vehicle as it
passes the camera.  A second laser catches the vehicle at another
point and the camera makes a determination if the driver was
speeding based on the time it took to pass the second laser beam.
If the driver is 12 mph over the speed limit, the camera takes
photos of the vehicle, he said.

"[Leahy] has come up with another unique theory and the courts
will decide if that has any value or not," Mr. Ayers said.

The fate of the plaintiff's lawsuit might rest on the question of
whether residents have the right to sue the town for violations of
Maryland's speed camera law, Mr. Leahy said.

In their motion, the town's lawyers cite a recent court case in
Montgomery County where the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that
the state's speed camera law does not allow for residents to sue a
jurisdiction in a class-action lawsuit for violations of the law,
partly because individuals can fight the tickets in a District
Court.

Mr. Leahy said since the case involves alleged fraud, residents
should be able to file a class-action lawsuit against the town.

"I think this is different because, let's just assume that there
was no speed camera statue," he said.  "This was a just speeding
ticket.  If someone forged an officer's name on it and made you
pay, I think that would be actionable based on common law fraud.
I don't think the case against Riverdale Park requires a new cause
of action in the speeding camera law."

The $5 million figure the plaintiffs are asking for is an estimate
based on 2011 budget documents that show that the town made $1.8
million in revenue that year on the speed camera tickets, and
assuming that similar figurers were made in other years since
January 2010, when the speeding cameras were installed, Mr. Leahy
said.

A judge could rule on whether the case should go forward at any
time, Mr. Leahy said, and a trial date will be set after that.


ROBERT MERICLE: Attorney Challenges "Kids for Cash" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for Times Leader, reports that an
attorney representing the juvenile detention centers named in the
"kids for cash" lawsuits has filed court papers that again
challenge a $17.75 million settlement reached with real estate
developer Robert Mericle.

Attorney Bernard Schneider, attorney for PA Child Care and its
related entities, argues U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo
should reject the proposed settlement for numerous reasons,
including claims that it does not fairly represent all plaintiffs
in the action.

The legal brief, filed on Nov. 9, comes about one week before
Judge Caputo is scheduled to hold a hearing that will help him
determine whether to give final approval to the settlement.

Mr. Mericle was among numerous defendants in a class-action
lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of juveniles who allege they
were wrongly incarcerated at PA Child Care and Western PA Child
Care, which were built by Mr. Mericle, as part of a scheme to
enrich Mr. Mericle, former judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael
Conahan, and others.

The settlement would end the case for Mr. Mericle, but the suit
continues against several other defendants, including the ex-
judges, PA Child Care, Western PA Child Care and Mid Atlantic
Youth Services, which operated the two juvenile centers.

The settlement, reached in December 2011, calls for juveniles who
appeared before Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and May 28, 2009
to each receive $500 to $5,000, depending upon individual
circumstances of their cases.  Some juveniles also are entitled to
additional payments from an "enhanced benefit fund" that's based
on the degree of psychological or physical harm they suffered.

Mr. Schneider cites the differing payments in support of his
argument that the settlement is not fair to all plaintiffs.

"The court should give particular attention to a proposed
settlement that offers considerably more value to one class of
plaintiffs than to another because it may be trading the latter
group's claims to enrich the former group," Mr. Schneider says.

For instance, Mr. Schneider points out the largest base award of
$5,000 will be paid to juveniles who were incarcerated at PA or
Western PA Child Care centers at some point during their
detention. That's to the detriment of others who were incarcerated
at other centers, even if they were detained longer and suffered
more harm than those detained at PA or Western PA Child Care.

"Plaintiffs offer neither facts nor argument to support the
proposition that residing in PACC or WPACC was somehow worse than
being placed in other facilities and thereby justify relief that
other placements do not," Mr. Schneider says.

Mr. Schneider had raised similar issues in a previous legal brief
he filed that opposed the plaintiffs' request to give preliminary
approval to the settlement.

Judge Caputo granted that approval in February, which permitted
attorneys to take necessary steps to identify and notify
claimants.  Approximately 1,000 juveniles have filed claims.

The next hearing, set for Nov. 19 at 10: a.m. in federal court in
Wilkes-Barre, will determine if the settlement gets final
approval, which would set the stage for the distribution of the
money.


SAMSUNG SDI: Accused of Fixing Prices of Lithium-Ion Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Nelson, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; LG
Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation;
Panasonic Corporation of North America; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.;
Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony Corporation; Sony Energy
Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Hitachi, Ltd.;
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; and Maxell Corporation of America, Case No.
3:12-cv-05516 (N.D. Calif., October 25, 2012) arises out of
alleged contact, combination and conspiracy among the Defendants
and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
the prices of Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries sold directly by
the Defendants and their affiliates during the period from
approximately January 1, 2002, through the present.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, Mr. Nelson
contends that he and the other members of the Class paid
artificially inflated prices for Lithium-ion Rechargeable
Batteries during the Class Period.  He argues that the prices
exceeded the amount they would have paid if the price for Lithium-
ion Rechargeable Batteries had been determined by a competitive
market.

Mr. Nelson is a resident of Texas.  During the Class Period, he
purchased Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries directly from one or
more of the Defendants.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.  LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul,
South Korea.  LG Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate
LG Electronics.  LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based
in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
LG Chem.

Panasonic is a Japanese Corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic was formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the name of
Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.    Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in
Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in
Tokyo, Japan, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.
Maxell is a New Jersey corporation based in Woodland Park, New
Jersey.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          David Y. Hwu, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillen@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Johnson, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF THOMAS H. JOHNSON, P.A.
          410 Hickory Street
          Texarkana, AR-TX 71854
          Telephone: (870) 773-6359

               - and -

          Harry Shulman, Esq.
          SHULMAN LAW FIRM
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (415) 901-0506


SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. San Francisco Forty Niners, Ltd.; The Oakland Raiders,
L.P.; Chargers Football Company, LLC; New Orleans Louisana Saints,
LLC; Football Northwest LLC; The Detroit Lions, Inc.; Houston NFL
Holdings, L.P.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC Ltd;
Jacksonville Jaguars, Ltd.; Tennessee Football, L.P.; Pittsburgh
Steelers Sports , Inc.; Buffalo Bills, Inc.; Indianapolis Colts,
Inc.; PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a Denver Broncos; New England Patriots,
L.P.; Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.; The Rams Football Company, Inc.;
Green Bay Packers, Inc.; Miami Dolphins Ltd.; New York Jets LLC;
Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.; Dallas Cowboys Football
Club Ltd.; Tampa Bay Area NFL Football, Inc.; Cleveland Browns
Football Company LLC; New York Football Giants, Inc.; Philadelphia
Eagles Football Club, Inc.; Richardson Sports Limited Partnership;
Pro-Football, Inc.; Five Smiths, Inc.; B & B Holdings, Inc.;
National Football League Properties, Inc.; National Football
League; Reebok International, Ltd., Case No. 5:12-cv-05481 (N.D.
Calif., October 24, 2012) is brought on behalf of indirect
purchasers within the state of California of apparel bearing the
logo, trademarks, emblems or other intellectual property of
National Football League teams.

The Defendants have entered into a series of agreements in
restraint of trade regarding licensing and distribution of apparel
bearing the Intellectual Property of the individual NFL teams, Mr.
Dang asserts.  He contends that although each of the NFL team's
Intellectual Property is owned by their respective teams, which
each would be free to license according to each individual team's
sole judgment, the owners of each of the individual teams have
agreed to license their Intellectual Property only to Defendant
NFL Properties, Inc., a separate Delaware corporation formed by
the Individual NFL teams and the NFL.  NFL Properties, in turn,
granted an exclusive license of more than 10 years' duration to
Reebok to use the Intellectual Property of any and all individual
NFL teams, and as a result, competition in the market for apparel
bearing the Intellectual Property of any NFL team has been
thwarted, and consumers of these products have been overcharged
for their purchases, he adds.

Mr. Dang is a resident of San Jose, California.  In November 2011,
during the Class Period, he purchased apparel bearing the NFL team
logo and Intellectual Property from a sports merchandise retailer.
Hence, he asserts that he was an indirect purchaser of apparel
bearing the Intellectual Property of an NFL team that paid an
anticompetitive overcharge for his purchase.

San Francisco Forty Niners, Ltd. is a California corporation based
in Santa Clara, California, and is the owner of the San Francisco
Forty Niners, the NFL team for the city of San Francisco.  Oakland
Raiders, L.P., is a California limited partnership based in
Alameda, California, and is the owner of the Oakland Raiders, the
NFL team for the city of Oakland.  Chargers Football is a
California limited liability company based in San Diego,
California, and is the owner of the San Diego Chargers, the NFL
team for the city of San Diego.  New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC
is a Louisiana limited liability company based in Metairie,
Louisiana, and is the owner of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL
team for the city of New Orleans.  Football Northwest LLC is a
Washington limited liability company based in Renton, Washington,
and is the owner of the Seattle Seahawks, the NFL team for the
city of Seattle.  The Detroit Lions, Inc. is a Michigan
corporation based in Allen Park, Michigan, and is the owner of the
Detroit Lions, the NFL team for the city of Detroit.

Houston NFL Holdings is a Texas limited partnership based in
Houston, Texas, and is the owner of the Houston Texans, the NFL
team for the city of Houston.  Minnesota Vikings Football Club is
a Minnesota limited liability company based in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, and is the owner of the Minnesota Vikings, the NFL team
for the city of Minneapolis.  Jacksonville Jaguars, Ltd. is a
Florida corporation based in Jacksonville, Florida, and is the
owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, the NFL team for the city of
Jacksonville.  Tennessee Football is a Tennessee limited
partnership based in Knoxville, Tennessee, and is the owner of the
Tennessee Titans, the NFL team for the city of Nashville.
Pittsburgh Steelers Sports is a Pennsylvania corporation based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is the owner of the Pittsburgh
Steelers, the NFL team for the city of Pittsburgh.

Buffalo Bills, Inc. is a New York corporation based in Orchard
Park, New York, and is the owner of the Buffalo Bills, the NFL
team for the city of Buffalo.  Indianapolis Colts, Inc. is an
Indiana corporation based in Indianapolis, Indiana, and is the
owner of the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL team for the city of
Indianapolis.  PDB Sports is a Colorado corporation based in
Denver, Colorado, and is the owner of the Denver Broncos, the NFL
team for the city of Denver.  New England Patriots, L.P. is a
Massachusetts limited partnership based in Foxboro, Massachusetts,
and is the owner of the New England Patriots, the NFL team for the
city of Boston and surrounding locales.  Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
is a Cincinnati corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is the
owner of the Cincinnati Bengals, the NFL team for the city of
Cincinnati.  Rams Football is a Missouri corporation based in St.
Louis, Missouri, and is the owner of the St. Louis Rams, the NFL
team for the city of St. Louis.

Green Bay Packers, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation based in Green
Bay, Wisconsin, and is the owner of the Green Bay Packers, the NFL
team for the city of Green Bay and surrounding locales.  Miami
Dolphins Ltd. is a Florida corporation based in Davie, Florida,
and is the owner of the Miami Dolphins, the NFL team for the city
of Miami.  New York Jets LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company based in Florham Park, New Jersey, and is the owner of the
New York Jets, an NFL team for the city of New York.  Kansas City
Chiefs Football Club is a Missouri corporation based in Kansas
City, Missouri, and is the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, the
NFL team for the city of Kansas City.  Dallas Cowboys Football
Club is a Texas corporation based in Irvine, Texas, and is the
owner of the Dallas Cowboys, the NFL team for the city of Dallas.
Tampa Bay Area is a Florida corporation based in Tampa, Florida,
and is the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the NFL team for the
city of Tampa and surrounding locales.

Cleveland Browns Football is an Ohio limited liability company
based in Berea, Ohio, and is the owner of the Cleveland Browns,
the NFL team for the city of Cleveland.  New York Football is a
New Jersey corporation based in East Rutherford, New Jersey, and
is the owner of the New York Giants, an NFL team for the city of
New York and surrounding metropolitan area.  Philadelphia Eagles
Football is a Pennsylvania corporation based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and is the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, the NFL
team for the city of Philadelphia.  Richardson Sports is a North
Carolina limited partnership based in Charlotte, North Carolina,
and is the owner of the Carolina Panthers, the NFL team for the
city of Charlotte and surrounding locales.  Pro-Football, Inc. is
a Virginia corporation based in Ashbum, Virginia, and is the owner
of the Washington Redskins, the NFL team for the city of
Washington and surrounding locales.  Five Smiths is a Georgia
corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia, and is the owner of the
Atlanta Falcons, the NFL team for the city of Atlanta.  B & B
Holdings is an Arizona corporation based in Tempe, Arizona, and is
the owner of the Arizona Cardinals, the NFL team for the city of
Phoenix and surrounding locales.

The Team Defendants are the owners of the trademarks, logos, and
other intellectual property associated with their respective
teams.

NFLP is a Delaware corporation based in New York.  NFLP was
established pursuant to an agreement between the NFL and the
constituent NFL teams for the purpose of licensing the trademarks,
logos and other indicia of the individual NFL teams and the NFL
for commercial use.  NFL is an unincorporated association founded
in 1963 comprising, through their respective owners, the various
football teams in the NFL.  Reebok is a Massachusetts corporation
based in Canton, Massachusetts.  Reebok is a marketer of sports
apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE KALFAYAN BENINK &SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
federal judge in Philadelphia has approved of a settlement in a
class action case in which plaintiffs who worked as security
guards for Securitas Security Services USA claimed the defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act when it required the class members to perform certain job
duties without compensation.

Frankie Williams, Kimberly Ord and Matthew Devine filed suit
against the security firm in December 2010 on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated over allegations that the defendant
failed to compensate the employees for overtime hours worked.
In their collective action, the plaintiffs claimed that they
failed to be paid for work in connection with new hire
orientation, post-hire training, shift changes at their worksites
and maintaining their company-issued uniforms.

A judge subsequently certified only the new hire orientation
claim.

The plaintiffs then added their state PMWA claim.

In a Nov. 8 memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Harvey
Bartle, III, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted the
unopposed joint motion for final approval of the settlement, and
the unopposed plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
proposed incentive, fee and expense awards in the case.

In doing so, Judge Bartle allowed $240,000 to be paid out by
Securitas Security Services to settle the case.

The settlement includes $100,000 to participating class members,
$15,000 each to the named plaintiffs, and $125,000 in lawyers'
fees, costs and expenses.

Background information contained within the judicial memorandum
shows that the parties reached the $240,000 settlement following
"vigorous negotiations," including a full day of mediation with a
former federal court magistrate judge.

The settlement consisted of back wages to 1,242 class members
totaling $100,000, payments of $5,000 to each of the named
plaintiffs and $125,000 to the various plaintiffs' attorneys who
worked on the litigation.

Court papers state that the back wages were calculated by
multiplying the number of class numbers by the number of hours of
new hire orientation and then by the minimum wage in effect at the
time.

That product was then multiplied by a factor of two for liquidated
damages for the FLSA claim and by a factor or 1.25 for the PMWA
claim.

Back wages are covered from the period of Oct. 15, 2008, the date
on which the parties agreed to toll the statute of limitation, to
Jan. 7, 2010, which is when the defendant began paying for new
hire orientation.

Attorneys maintained that they worked more than 463 hours on the
litigation.  Their hourly rates were between $375 and $600; non-
lawyer hourly rates were between $125 and $200.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement this past July,
with final approval given following a Nov. 6 hearing.

In his memorandum and order, Judge Bartle wrote that the
settlement figures are "reasonable and adequate and provide
recovery for all of the class members.

"We find that the settlement reflects good faith negotiations
between the parties as to the reasonable valuation of the
plaintiffs' claims and the attorneys' fees expended," the judge
wrote.  "It was not fraudulent or collusive, and it factored in
the complexity, risk, and expense of the litigation."

Judge Bartle further wrote that the sum for attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses was "vigorously negotiated and significantly reduced
from the lodestar amount.  Moreover, no class member objected to
the settlement or requested to be excluded from it."

The approval of the settlement ends the litigation.


VISA INC: NACS to Appeal Swipe Fee Settlement Prelim. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Convenience Stores on Nov. 12 issued
the following news release:

NACS and other named plaintiffs are filing a notice of appeal to
challenge the Nov. 9 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, which grants preliminary approval to
a proposed settlement of a long-standing antitrust class action
filed by merchants against Visa, MasterCard and the largest banks.
A majority of the 19 named plaintiffs have indicated that they
will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to deny
preliminary approval due to the legal defects in the proposed
settlement.

"We will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to
deny preliminary approval due to the legal defects in the proposed
settlement," said NACS President and CEO Hank Armour.  "It is
unclear whether a stay will be issued to prevent notices of the
settlement going to the millions of merchants who accept credit
cards."

The majority of named plaintiffs -- including NACS -- have
rejected the proposed settlement, and approximately 1,200
additional merchants and retailer groups have filed papers
objecting to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
Additionally, the National Federation of Independent Businesses
(NFIB) and the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) each filed
Amicus briefs in support of our opposition.

"This settlement has fatal legal defects. We look forward to
presenting the problems we see in this proposal to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals," said Jeffrey Shinder, managing partner,
Constantine Cannon LLC, counsel to the merchants objecting to the
proposed settlement.

The named class plaintiffs opposing the proposed settlement of the
case, which is known as "In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation," are NACS, Affiliated
Foods Midwest, Coborn's Inc., D'Agostino Supermarkets, Jetro
Holdings LLC, NATSO, National Community Pharmacists Association
(NCPA), National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), National
Grocers Association (NGA) and National Restaurant Association
(NRA).

"The merchant community is deeply committed to reforms that bring
transparency and competition to the broken electronic payments
market.  The volume and diversity of those objecting to this
flawed proposal are remarkable and continues to grow," said
Mr. Shinder.

The only issues considered at the preliminary approval hearing
were whether there are legal defects in the proposal -- the
overall fairness of the proposal will not be fully considered
until later.

"This battle is not close to being over, and NACS and the other
objectors will fight at every opportunity to either scuttle this
flawed settlement and begin earnest negotiations, or take the case
to court," said Mr. Armour.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit v. Government
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois dismissed Plaintiff Michael Martinez's
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Mr. Martinez alleged that
he was exposed to asbestos while incarcerated at the Vienna
Correctional Center.  Judge Gilbert ruled that the Plaintiff's
cursory statements are not sufficient to indicate that he suffered
any physical, psychological, or "probabilistic" harm from the
alleged conditions.

The case is MICHAEL A. MARTINEZ, # R-70807 Plaintiff, v. LISA
MADIGAN, ESQ., S.A. GODINEZ Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-1026-JPG
(S.D. Ill.).  A copy of Judge Gilbert's Decision dated Oct. 17,
2012, is available at http://is.gd/AyEuEYfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Overturns Ruling for Honeywell, et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Glaab appeals from the summary judgment entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Honeywell
International, Inc., et al., in an asbestos action.  The Appellant
asks the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to determine whether he
made out a prima facie case of a compensable asbestos-related
injury to defeat the entry of summary judgment.

In an Oct. 22, 2012 Decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held
that the Appellant presented a prima facie case of an asbestos-
related compensable injury to overcome a dispositive motion at
this stage of the proceedings.  Accordingly, the Superior Court
vacated and remanded the case for further prosecution.

The Appellant filed the action in 2005 alleging that he was
diagnosed as suffering from pulmonary asbestosis and asbestos-
related pleural diseases as well as suffering from pulmonary
impairment and disability causally related to asbestos exposure
and asbestos disease as a result of occupational exposure to
asbestos-containing products.  From 1954 to 2003, the Appellant
worked for various plumbing contractors.

In reversing the lower court's decision, the Superior Court held
that the general consensus in Pennsylvania law is that to present
a prima facie case for a compensable asbestos-related injury, the
plaintiff must present prima facie evidence of (1) his discernible
asbestos exposure, (2) which is related to an asbestos-related
condition that is (3) symptomatic, and (4) he suffers some
functional impairment or disability as a result.

In this case, the Superior Court found that the Appellant worked
in the plumbing and heating trade for more than 45 years and
handled numerous products containing asbestos.  The Appellant
developed bilateral pleural plaques and pleural thickening, and
his medical expert confirmed the asbestos exposure related to the
lung abnormalities.  The Appellant also suffers shortness of
breath, and his medical expert opined that the Appellant's medical
abnormalities substantially contribute to the shortness of breath.
The Appellant's shortness of breath purportedly prevents him from
walking 100 meters or climbing 15 stairs without stopping to rest.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party, the Appellant has presented a prima facie case of a
compensable asbestos-related injury sufficient to overcome a
dispositive motion at this stage of the proceedings, the Superior
Court ruled.

The case is KARL GLAAB Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
INC., AMERICAN STANDARD, AO SMITH CORPORATION, ARGO PACKING
CORPORATION, AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE USA, INC., AW CHESTERTON, INC.,
BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., CARRIER
CORPORATION, CHRYSLER CORPORATION, CLEAVER BROOKS, CRANE PACKING,
CRANE COMPANY, DAP, INC., DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER
CORPORATION, INC., GARLOCK, INC., GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, GOULD, INC., GREEN TWEED & COMPANY,
INC., JH FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY, KEELER DORR-OLIVER BOILER
COMPANY, OWENS BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC., METALLO GASKET
COMPANY, PARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PECORA CORPORATION, RAPID
AMERICAN CORPORATION, SEPCO CORPORATION, INC., SOS PRODUCTS
COMPANY, SURSEAL GASKET & PACKING COMPANY, INC., WEIL McCLAIN
COMPANY AND YORK INTERNATIONAL Appellees, No. 2507 EDA 2011 (Pa.
Ct. Common Pleas).  A copy of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/J7JXqnfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Dismisses Worker's Wrongful Death Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles S. Russell, senior justice at the Supreme Court
of Virginia, affirmed a circuit court's ruling dismissing a
wrongful death action captioned DORTHE CRISP GIBBS, EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF KENNETH M. GIBBS, DECEASED, v. NEWPORT NEWS
SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY, Record No. 111870 (Va.).

The wrongful death action was filed arising from Kenneth M. Gibbs'
death, which allegedly was caused by his exposure to asbestos-
containing products while on active duty with the armed forces of
the United States.  According to Justice Russell, the claim made
by Mr. Gibbs' estate against the Newport News Shipbuilding and
Drydock Company is barred under the exclusivity provision of the
Virginia Workers' Compensation Act because Mr. Gibbs and the
Shipyard were statutory co-employees when he was allegedly exposed
to asbestos in the course of his employment.

In analyzing this issue as being dependent on whether the Navy
could be held liable for compensation under the Act, instead of
whether Mr. Gibbs' injury arose out of and in the course of his
employment with the Navy, Justice Russell believes the majority
has departed from the Court's precedent.  Furthermore, in doing
so, the majority has adopted an approach that will deprive third
parties who contract with the federal government the benefit of
the exclusivity provision of the Act without any regard to whether
the plaintiff's claim arose in the course of his employment, and
despite the fact that those third parties would be entitled to
protection if they contracted with a private entity.

If Mr. Gibbs' injury, which was the subject of the action, came
within the purview of the Act, an award under the Act would have
been his estate's exclusive remedy, barring the wrongful death
action.

A copy of Justice Russell's Decision dated Nov. 1, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/IRZnGXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Corut Remands Suit v. Colgate-Palmolive
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Nickerson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted Plaintiff Joyce Barlow's motion to
remand an asbestos exposure suit against John Crane Houdaille,
Inc., et al., which was originally filed with the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City.  The motion to remand came after Colgate-
Palmolive, one of the named defendants, sought to remove the
lawsuit to the federal court on the ground of fraudulent joinder.
In her complaint, Ms. Barlow alleged that she contracted malignant
mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to Colgate-Palmolive's
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder.

In ruling for Ms. Barlow, Judge Nickerson pointed out that Colgate
does not explicitly state which theory of fraudulent joinder it is
arguing.  The heavy burden for proving fraudulent joinder works
against Colgate in this case, Judge Nickerson ruled.  Ms. Barlow
argues that her joinder of the instate defendants was not
fraudulent because there remains a possibility that she was
exposed to asbestos while working at RMR Corporation, in Maryland,
in the 1960s.  She points out that her belief that she was exposed
to asbestos by her use of Cashmere does not negate the possibility
that she was exposed to asbestos from other sources.  This
evidence surely preserves the slightest possibility of a right to
relief or a glimmer of hope on Ms. Barlow's claims against the in-
state defendants, Judge Nickerson held.  As a result, the Court
finds that joinder of the instate defendants, including Colgate-
Palmolive, was not fraudulent and the case will be remanded to the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The case is JOYCE BARLOW v. JOHN CRANE HOUDAILLE, INC., et al.,
Civ. No. WMN-12-1780 (D. Md.).  A copy of Judge Nickerson's
Decision dated Nov. 1, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/6uEqVo
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 34,423 Fibro Claims End Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation had 34,423 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

Influenced by the bankruptcy filings of numerous defendants in
asbestos-related litigation and the prospects of various forms of
state and national legislative reform, the rate at which
plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against various companies,
including the Corporation and Amchem, increased in 2001, 2002 and
the first half of 2003. Since then, the rate of filing has
significantly abated. The Corporation expects more asbestos-
related suits to be filed against it and Amchem in the future, and
will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate,
both pending and future claims.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability.

The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was $617 million at September 30, 2012.
Approximately 21 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 79 percent related to future
claims.

The average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and the rate
of new claim filings has fluctuated both up and down since the
beginning of 2001. The Corporation's management expects such
fluctuations to continue in the future based upon a number of
factors, including the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period, the jurisdictions in which such claims arose,
and the extent to which any proposed legislative reform related to
asbestos litigation is being considered.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $25
million in the third quarter of 2012 ($30 million in the third
quarter of 2011), and $73 million in the first nine months of 2012
($58 million in the first nine months of 2011) and was reflected
in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income.

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was $25 million at September 30, 2012 and
$40 million at December 31, 2011. At September 30, 2012 and
December 31, 2011, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries
was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington
Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage.

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

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

Union Carbide Corporation is a chemical and polymers company with
over 2,400 employees. The company possesses some of the industry's
most advanced process and catalyst technologies, and operates some
of the most cost-efficient, large-scale production facilities in
the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Still Defends 513 Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation continues to defend 513 asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2012.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of
September 30, 2012, there were approximately 513 lawsuits.
Management believes that the company has substantial
indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. The company has valid defenses to these claims and intends
to continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its
historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the
current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts
accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos-
related litigation. At September 30, 2012, the company had
recorded litigation liabilities of approximately $42 million, a
significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the
volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the
company could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After
consulting with legal counsel and after considering established
liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending
litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial condition
or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect
on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation primarily provides packaging solutions to
the healthcare, beauty and personal care, food, beverage, tobacco,
and home and garden industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Continues to Defend 755 Active Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
At September 30, 2012, United States Steel Corporation was a
defendant in approximately 755 active cases involving roughly
3,295 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012.  As of December 31, 2011, U.S.
Steel was a defendant in approximately 695 active cases involving
approximately 3,235 plaintiffs. For the period ended September 30,
2012, settlements and dismissals resulted in the disposition of
approximately 110 claims and U.S. Steel paid approximately $9
million in settlements. New filings added approximately 170
claims.

About 2,570, or approximately 78 percent, of these claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's experience
in such cases, it believes the actual number of plaintiffs who
ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small
fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the claims
filed in 2009 through 2012 involve individual or small groups of
claimants.

Historically, these claims against U.S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U.S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products formerly manufactured by U.S. Steel;
and (3) claims made under certain federal and general maritime
laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel. The ultimate
outcome of any claim depends upon a myriad of legal and factual
issues, including whether the plaintiff can prove actual disease,
if any; actual exposure, if any, to U.S. Steel products; the
duration of exposure to asbestos, if any, on U.S. Steel's premises
and the plaintiff's exposure to other sources of asbestos. In
general, the only insurance available to U.S. Steel with respect
to asbestos claims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-
million dollar self-insured retentions. To date, U.S. Steel has
received minimal payments under these policies relating to
asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U.S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
260 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases in which the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.
In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U.S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U.S. Steel or our products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U.S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs
have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure
to asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related
to U.S. Steel or our products or premises.

In every asbestos case in which U.S. Steel is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against numerous named defendants and
generally do not contain allegations regarding specific monetary
damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages
is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named
defendants and in no case is there any allegation of monetary
damages against U.S. Steel. Historically, approximately 78 percent
of the cases against U.S. Steel did not specify any damage amount
or stated that the damages sought exceeded the amount required to
establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed.
(Jurisdictional amounts generally range from $25,000 to $75,000.)
U.S. Steel does not consider the amount of damages alleged, if
any, in a complaint to be relevant in assessing our potential
exposure to asbestos liabilities.
U.S. Steel aggressively pursues grounds for the dismissal of U.S.
Steel from pending cases and litigates cases to verdict where we
believe litigation is appropriate. U.S. Steel also makes efforts
to settle appropriate cases, especially mesothelioma cases, for
reasonable, and frequently nominal, amounts.

The amount U.S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U.S. Steel's financial position. U.S. Steel does
not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect to
such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against us
allege so-called "premises" liability-based exposure on U.S.
Steel's current or former premises. These claims may be made by an
indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers, railroad
workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees, government
inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers. In most
cases, the claimant also was exposed to asbestos in non-U.S. Steel
settings; the relative periods of exposure between U.S. Steel and
non-U.S. Steel settings vary with each claimant; and the strength
or weakness of the causal link between U.S. Steel exposure and any
injury vary widely as do the nature and severity of the injury
claimed.

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,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
period. Among the factors considered in reaching this conclusion
are: (1) the generally declining trend in the number of claims;
(2) that it has been many years since U.S. Steel employed maritime
workers or manufactured or sold asbestos containing products; and
(3) U.S. Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements and
dismissals.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel mill
products, including flat-rolled and tubular products, in North
America and Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Still Facing Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries have been
subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims.  Management
believes that such claims will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial statements. In general, these claims
seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure
to asbestos used in certain components sold in the past by the
Company's subsidiaries. Management believes that the majority of
the claimants were vehicle mechanics. The vast majority of these
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. Management
believes that, to the extent any of the products sold by the
Company's subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated. Based upon several years
of experience with such claims, management believes that only a
small proportion of the claimants has or will ever develop any
asbestos-related illness.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the
past. These claims are strongly disputed by the Company and it has
been its policy to defend against them aggressively. Many of these
cases have been dismissed without any payment whatsoever.
Moreover, there is significant insurance coverage with solvent
carriers with respect to these claims. However, while costs to
defend and settle these claims in the past have not been material,
there can be no assurances that this will remain so in the future.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2012.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a supplier of automotive systems,
modules and components to global automotive original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets. The Company's
operations encompass the design, manufacture and sale of active
and passive safety related products


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Still Defending Fibro Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2012.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received.  To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $4,900,000 (excluding
costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a
defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively
pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed
to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against
the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all
defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against
the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims
up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion
of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that
is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted
that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.
The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and in the first
quarter of 2007 for $15,000,000 and $20,000,000, respectively. The
payments under the latest settlement and release agreement were
structured to be received over a four-year period with annual
installments of $5,000,000, the final installment of which was
received in the first quarter of 2010. The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice.  At the end of the term of the agreement,
the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this
insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The
Company also believes that, if the coverage issues under the
primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely
to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the
subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state
guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the
subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in
respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to
the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be
exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims
against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,
especially with respect to claims that are currently not being
actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe
that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be
held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the
subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature
of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of
such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential
availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary
level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance
and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held
responsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of the
parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not
probable that the Company will incur any material losses. All of
the asbestos cases pursued against the Company challenging the
parent-subsidiary relationship are in the early stages of
litigation. The Company has been successful to date having claims
naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company
may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not
possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces and markets a range
of formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy
industrial and manufacturing applications and, in addition, offers
and markets chemical management services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Co., 38 Others Face Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that an Elkview
woman is suing 39 companies she claims are responsible for her
late husband's lung cancer and death.

On Nov. 3, 2010, Thomas Jarrett Bowen was diagnosed with lung
cancer, from which he died on Dec. 5, 2010, according to a
complaint filed Oct. 31 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Mary C. Bowen claims Thomas Bowen was exposed to asbestos and/or
asbestos containing products during his employment as a laborer
from 1964 until 2001.

Thomas Bowen smoked two packs of cigarettes per day from 1957
until 1987, but then quit, according to the suit.

Mary Bowen is suing the defendants based on theories of
negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied
warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy,
misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premise owners and as
Thomas Bowen's employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort,
according to the suit.

Mary Bowen is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues.  She is
being represented by:

Bronwyn I. Rinehart -- brinehart@jfhumphreys.com
Victoria L. Antion -- vantion@motleyrice.com and
Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 39 companies named as defendants in the suit are A.W.
Chesterton Company; Caterpillar, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Cleaver-
Brooks Company, Inc.; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton
Corporation; Erie City Iron Works; Flowserve Corporation f/k/a the
Duriron Company, Inc.; Flowserve Corporation, as successor-in-
interest to Durametallic Corporation; FMC Corporation; General
Electric Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Grinnell, LLC; Honeywell
International; Howden North America, Inc.; IMO Industries Inc.;
Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT
Corporation; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio
Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley
Power, Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Rust Engineering &
Construction, Inc.; Schneider Electric; State Electric Supply
Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Swindell Dressier
International Corporation; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; United
Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International;
Vimasco Corporation; West Virginia Electric Supply Company; Yarway
Corporation; and Zurn Industries, LLC.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-2192.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Underground Steam Pipe Bursts, Spews Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa M. Werthmann of The Boston Globe reports that an
underground steam pipe near Boston City Hall ruptured early
Wednesday, Nov. 7, spewing steam and a small amount of asbestos
into the air, according to the Boston Fire Department.

The leak happened just after 1 a.m. on Congress Street at Hanover
Street, said department spokesman Steve MacDonald.

When the 14-inch pipe ruptured, it sent steam and particles of
asbestos insulation into the air, MacDonald said.

"We're not exactly certain yet as to what the cause is," said
Rowan Sanders, spokesman for Veolia Energy, the steam utility that
operates the pipe.  "It's a rare episode."

Steam was forced through the pipe, which is buried underground
below a layer of concrete, and up through the road, creating "a
mess in the streets," Sanders said.

Utility officials hired a cleanup company to deal with the
asbestos, which is sprinkled throughout heaps of broken concrete
and dirt, Sanders said.

He said asbestos was a common form of insulation, but that crews
will replace it with mineral wool once they gain access to the
pipe.

"We have to clean it up and have it hauled away by licensed
professionals," Sanders said.  "We have to clean all the physical
dust that we see and make sure that's disposed of safely."

The steam utility covered the leak with a temporary plate and
plans to dig up the street and fully repair the pipe once an exact
time can be set up with city officials, he said.  Part of Congress
Street was closed for the cleanup; it was reopened by Wednesday
afternoon.

"We're doing continuous testing to make sure the public is safe,"
Sanders said.  "The air tests all came back clear."

The burst pipe did not cause any injuries or service interruptions
to customers, but the company hopes to determine the cause to
prevent it from happening again, he said.

"You really have to study the root cause so you can figure out
what's happening and how you can prevent it," Sanders said.  "We
apologize for any inconvenience to any vehicular or pedestrian
traffic."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Isa Mines, Others Face Fibro Exposure Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fraser Coast Chronicle (Australia) reports a Bundaberg man who
says he was exposed to asbestos over a 15-year period at different
workplaces has lodged a claim for compensation after being
diagnosed with lung cancer.

Ernest Tanna, 63, worked as a laborer for various sugar mills, the
Johnstone Shire Council, and Mount Isa Mines between the mid-1960s
and 1980 and was believed to have been exposed to high levels of
asbestos on the job.

Mr. Tanna said he was angry that he and his colleagues weren't
informed about the dangers of asbestos which has long been
regarded as one of the likely causes of lung cancer.

"I would come home covered in dust from head to toe," Mr. Tanna
said.

"If I would have known about the dangers of asbestos back then, I
wouldn't have gone anywhere near it.

"I was just doing my job and getting paid to do it, and now my
life has been thrown into chaos and I'm concerned for my wife and
family."

Mr. Tanna was diagnosed with lung cancer after collapsing two days
after Christmas last year and Slater & Gordon asbestos lawyer Carl
Hughes said his firm was now investigating the exposure at the
different workplaces.

"As a laborer, Mr. Tanna was exposed to high levels of asbestos
while working in sugar mills and the local council," Mr. Hughes
said.

"He performed a variety of jobs including cutting cement fibro
pipes and cleaning worksites."

Mr. Hughes said the bulk of the claim would be against Mount Isa
mines, where it is claimed that Mr. Tanna was exposed to higher
levels of asbestos dust and fibers.

"Mr. Tanna is one of many former employees who worked both above
and below ground at the mine and was exposed to asbestos
insulation materials as frequently as on a daily basis," Mr.
Hughes said.

"He also worked as part of the engineering workshop where he was
exposed to asbestos dust from brake pads and brake linings."

Mr. Hughes said Mr. Tanna and his colleagues were not warned of
the dangers of asbestos.

"Asbestos is very dangerous when it's disturbed, and people should
know that no matter what contact they have had with asbestos, the
dangers are very real," he said.

"This is a sad case when a team of hardworking men have had their
lives destroyed due to Australia's ugly history and reliance on
asbestos products."

Mr. Hughes encouraged anyone who has been in a workplace with
asbestos to put their information on the Slater & Gordon asbestos
register which is a database of workplaces where asbestos has been
used, and is a comprehensive reference point in the event that
workers develop an asbestos-related disease in years to come.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-French Leader Aubry Facing Charges Over Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------------
AFP (Paris) reports that Martine Aubry, the former leader of
France's governing Socialist Party, has been charged with
manslaughter in a probe into whether state negligence contributed
to thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure.

The charges against Aubry relate to her time as a senior official
in the ministry of social affairs, before she became a major
figure in French politics.

As the ministry's director of industrial relations from 1984-87,
Aubry is accused of having helped to delay the implementation in
France of a 1983 European Union directive designed to strengthen
the protection of workers dealing with asbestos.

The examining magistrate in the case believes Aubry bowed to
pressure from industrialists lobbying against a complete ban on
the use of the material and that she ignored warnings from French
health authorities of a mushrooming epidemic of cancers and
terminal lung diseases.

Aubry has strongly denied all the charges, describing them as a
"profound insult to who I am and the professional and political
choices I have made throughout my life."

Aubry, the daughter of former European Commission President
Jacques Delors, has found herself caught up in a far-reaching
probe into how the French authorities handled the emerging
evidence of the dangers posed by asbestos between 1970 and 1997,
when the material was finally banned.

The specific charges against her relate to the case of workers
employed at the Fereo-Valeo auto-components factory in Normandy.
Asbestos was once widely used for car brake pads.

An estimated 3,000 people currently die prematurely every year in
France as a result of asbestos poisoning and there have been
pessimistic predictions that the death rate could nearly treble
over the next decade because of exposure in the 70s and 80s.

Lawyers for Aubry, who was formally charged in the early hours of
Wednesday, Nov. 7, following a marathon session with the
magistrate, were expected to lodge a request for the charges to be
dropped.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Buildings Registry Endorser Dies
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Howard Willems, the Saskatoon man who
advocated for broader knowledge about the dangers of asbestos in
buildings, has died of cancer at age 59.

Willems had a form of cancer linked to asbestos called
mesothelioma, which he believed he contracted while inspecting a
number of older food plants in Saskatchewan.

Family members confirmed Willems died on Thursday, Nov. 8.

His stepson, Jesse Todd, said Willems had been sedated for the
last 48 hours and last spoke on Tuesday, Nov. 6.

"He gathered the family around and said he'd had enough and he was
tired," Todd said.  "[He] just wanted to go in peace."

Willems was a proponent for the creation of a registry of
buildings that contain asbestos.

The Opposition NDP brought that issue to the Saskatchewan
government.  However, the minister responsible for workplace
safety, Don Morgan, said a registry would not be a good idea.

Virtually all public buildings constructed before 1980 contain
asbestos and many built since also have it, Morgan noted in
response to the NDP.

Morgan suggested a registry of buildings with asbestos might be
incomplete and would therefore create a false sense of security.

In 2011, at the age of 58, Willems had a lung removed.  Willems
was a building inspector for more than 30 years and believed his
exposure to asbestos was related to inspections he did on plants
while they were being renovated, especially during the removal of
pipes with asbestos insulation.

"When the light hit the right way you could see the fibers in the
air," Willems told CBC News earlier in 2012.

He said no one seemed to be concerned at the time about the
dangers of breathing in the fibers, and that a registry would help
workers to be better informed about hazards.

Todd said that Willems tried to make a difference.

"He just hopes that all this does bring about change in the end.
You know, this was his wish."

The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die
each year from asbestos-related disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Orders Fibro Audit on All Power Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News (Australia) reports that the NSW government has ordered
an industry-wide asbestos audit for the state's big electricity
providers following meetings with unions and power companies.

Energy Minister Chris Hartcher agreed to the audit after a
"productive meeting" with the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) and
representatives of power providers Endeavour Energy, Ausgrid and
Essential Energy.

"The government is keen to ensure that asbestos management,
removal and training plans are adequate to ensure worker and
community protection," Mr. Hartcher said in a statement.

However, he said the issue might need a national approach.

During the meeting, the union demanded asbestos removal across the
industry after raising concerns about its workers being at risk of
asbestos exposure.

It followed the union's release on Tuesday, Nov. 6, of internal
Ausgrid documents which showed about 49 cases of asbestos-related
illness at the company in 22 years.

The ETU claims there is still friable -- or easily-crumbled --
asbestos at underground electricity substations and meter boards.

Workcover NSW is coordinating the audit, which will involve
Endeavour Energy, Ausgrid and Essential Energy, TransGrid and the
state's power generators Delta Electricity, Macquarie Generation
and Eraring Energy.

Representatives from all parties will meet for the first time on
Nov. 14 to agree on terms of reference to set out the process for
asbestos removal across the industry.

ETU secretary Steve Butler said he welcomed the government's
decision.

"It's a complete turnaround (by the companies)," he told AAP.

"We have zero tolerance to asbestos, it's got to be removed."

The audit will bring each company's own auditing processes into
one single system, Mr. Butler said.

"What's been identified is that those audits are out of sync.

"They are all different, so now there will be the one audit to
cover the whole industry."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VA SC Allows Claim Outside Workers' Comp. Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Bass of Legal Newsline reports the Virginia Supreme Court
has found that the estate of a man who had been exposed to
asbestos in a private shipbuilding company while he served in the
Navy was not barred by the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act from
filing suit against the shipbuilder.

In mid-1965, Navy seaman Kenneth Gibbs was ordered to be part of
the USS Lewis and Clark's pre-commissioning crew.  His job was to
test systems on the nuclear submarine during the six months prior
to its delivery to the Navy.

In 2008, Gibbs filed suit against the shipbuilder, Newport News
Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, alleging that while performing
his Navy duties on the sub, he had been exposed to asbestos,
causing his development of malignant mesothelioma.

Upon Gibbs' death in January 2009, his widow, Dorthe Crisp Gibbs,
amended the complaint to a claim for "wrongful death" under a
statute other than the Workers' Comp Act.

The shipyard answered the amended complaint by asserting that the
Workers' Comp Act provided the estate's "exclusive remedy."  They
argued that since this action came within the purview of the Act,
then an award under the Act would have been his estate's exclusive
remedy and, therefore, this action is barred.

The exclusivity provision of the Act provides:

"The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee when his
employer and he have accepted the provisions of this title
respectively to pay and accept compensation on account of injury
or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies
of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents
or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such
injury, loss of service or death."

The trial court sustained the defense plea and dismissed the case
with prejudice, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Justice Charles S. Russell, writing for the Court,
declared, "The Shipyard contends that the Navy was the Shipyard's
statutory employer, that Gibbs was the Navy's employee, and that
Gibbs and the Shipyard were therefore statutory co-employees
between whom the exclusivity provision applies...We do not agree
with that analysis."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buried Fibro Stops Prince's Trust Garden Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bolton News (UK) reports that work on a community garden has
been postponed after a group of volunteers found asbestos buried
at the site.

The asbestos was found mixed in with concrete when a team of
Prince's Trust volunteers were working on the Hideaway Garden, in
Barton Road, Farnworth.

The team of 15 youngsters were helping clear the area before it is
turned into a community garden.

Their supervisor took them off the project "as a precautionary
measure" when they found the potentially hazardous substance.

Contour Housing, which is funding the garden, said they safely
disposed of the substance after consulting with the Health and
Safety Executive.

They said cement mixed with asbestos is normally considered low-
hazard and no special license is needed to work with it, but work
has now been suspended on the site until a review can be carried
out.

A Contour Homes spokesman said: "We are contacting the cricket
club, which owns the land, and the residents' group involved in
the project.

"We are informing them of the material found by the sub-
contractors and of the need to gather more information before
deciding how to proceed."

He added: "We would like to apologize for any concern caused.

"We have taken this matter very seriously to ensure the health and
safety of those involved in the project.  We are committed to the
project, which aims to turn a site targeted by fly-tippers into a
community garden for local residents."

The garden was due to be built by Groundwork Bury and Bolton, a
project that is part of the Prince's Trust.

Nick Trotter, from Groundwork, said: "We err towards the side of
safety on these matters.

"It may or may not be asbestos, but from our point of view we are
working with a lot of young people and we cannot take the risk of
them being contaminated.

"We were very disappointed by it but we cannot take that chance.

"The team working in Farnworth only had a limited amount of time
to complete the program so we put them on another."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Veterans With Mesothelioma Have Payout Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hive Health Media relates that prior to the mid 1970's asbestos
was widely used throughout the military.  It was thought of as a
fantastic product due to its insulation properties and the fact
that it will not catch on fire.  Through testing it had
demonstrated that it did not burn.  Because of this it was woven
into fabrics that were used to make things like gloves and aprons
for workers in overheated climates.  The military used it for
insulation on many bases, ships, and buildings.  Asbestos was used
to line ceilings, walls and floors in areas that needed fire
protection.  Many of these buildings still stand, with very little
changes made to them, today.

Crews aboard a Navy ship would have been exposed to asbestos from
its use lining engine rooms.  There were so much asbestos used on
Navy ships that the US Government estimates several tons of
asbestos insulation was used in the engine rooms of every ship.
Due to the high use of asbestos throughout the military Veterans
have a greater risk of developing mesothelioma than the rest of
the United States population.  Veterans represent only 8% of
Americas population, but 30% of the mesothelioma related deaths.

Mesothelioma cancer can take decades to show up after prolonged
exposure.  Veterans that served our country and fought for our
freedom may find themselves terribly sick with cancer years later.
There is legislation stating that exposure to asbestos does not
constitute a military disability, so while Veterans may be treated
by VA medical staff they have difficulty receiving financial
compensation on their own.  Many have been repeatedly denied
claims for disability benefits -- benefits they rightfully
deserve.  While no one argues the fact that they are sick and have
a genuine problem, the US Government does not want to pay for it.
It has been proven that asbestos causes cancer, the US Military
widely used asbestos and for decades soldiers were exposed to it.
The challenge is not with proving the facts so much as with
dealing with the aftermath.

Working with a skilled attorney can change the landscape.  Rather
than a Veteran, or their family, fighting an uphill battle against
the US Government -- while simultaneously fighting the health
battle of their life -- researching and finding an expert in
veterans asbestos exposure law could help you receive the
treatment you need.  Proving these cases in court and associating
damages to them is a complicated process.  In order to make sure
Veterans receive the quality of care they need and their families
are financially taken care of an attorney experienced in
mesothelioma litigation is necessary.  When faced with a life
altering illness that can lead to death it is not the time to take
a chance on an inexperienced attorney.  You may only have one shot
at going after the government and making sure you receive the
financial compensation you deserve.  Be sure to check the
background of each attorney you are considering, read reviews from
independent attorney review sources, talk to past clients of the
firms, and make sure that the firm you are looking at can truly
backup their claims.

It is an American duty and moral responsibility to help spread
awareness.  Veterans are an under-served population when it comes
to receiving the healthcare they need.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Book Launched on Finding Fibro at Home
-------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos Audits has officially launched its new book, Identifying
Asbestos in your Home, which seeks to help homeowners and
renovators understand and locate asbestos used in the construction
of their homes.

Author Brian Sketcher from Asbestos Audits Queensland has collated
his experience and knowledge gained from 25 years of inspecting
buildings for asbestos, and put it together in this comprehensive
book.

"Unfortunately, very little information about asbestos
identification is available in Australia.  As far as I'm aware, it
is not taught in TAFE, trade or university courses.  With the
housing boom in turn causing a renovation boom, this book will
help Australians be aware of the hazards of asbestos and the
possible consequences of exposure," says Brian Sketcher.

The first few chapters of Identifying Asbestos in your Home
explain what asbestos is, what the different types of asbestos
are, and why asbestos is so dangerous for our health.

This is followed by a brief history of asbestos use in Australia
and an in-depth explanation of where asbestos was used in the
family home.

The book covers all common uses of asbestos inside and outside the
home, from fences, wall cladding and gutters to floor tiles,
toilet cubicles and insulation -- with pictures and a detailed
explanation of how asbestos was used and how it can be identified.

The final chapter includes vital safety precautions for homeowners
who have identified asbestos in their property.

"The fact is that almost all houses built before 1990 contain some
form of asbestos.  Don't make the mistake of thinking your home is
immune to this reality -- before you start renovation, maintenance
or demolition work, find out first whether your property contains
asbestos.  Don't risk exposing your family to dangerous asbestos
fibers," recommends Brian Sketcher.

Written for the everyday Australian, the book is jargon?free and a
first in its industry.

Identifying Asbestos in your Home is available in both hardcover
edition (AU$29.95) and eBook (AU$9.95) from the Asbestos Audits
Queensland website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDep Slaps $28,000 Fine on Milford Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Tota of The Milford Daily News reports that the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection on Thursday, Nov. 8, fined
a local real estate company after it bypassed state asbestos
regulations.

DARN Properties, LLC, of Milford was assessed a more than $28,000
penalty for a 2011 renovation project on a Congress Street rental
home.  The company allowed asbestos-laden floor tiles taken from
the property to be improperly removed and later disposed of in an
open-top Dumpster, according to the state DEP.

Under an agreement it reached with the state, the company must pay
$8,500 of the fine.  The state plans to suspend the rest of the
assessment, more than $19,000, as long as the company does not
tally any violations for one year.

When it learned of the violation, the state ordered the company to
hire a licensed asbestos contractor to handle, package and dispose
of the asbestos waste and decontaminate the Dumpster and area
around the property.

The company was fined both for not informing the state it was
conducting a demolition/renovation project involving asbestos-
containing materials and for improperly removing, handling,
storing and packaging waste contaminated with asbestos.

Regulations stipulate a company must notify the state in advance
of projects involving the removal or handling of asbestos.

Asbestos -- a mineral fiber often present in building materials
like roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, boiler insulation
and dry wall -- only poses a health risk if it is disturbed, which
causes its particles to get into the air, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Airborne asbestos can lead to lung cancer, mesothelioma, a cancer
occurring in the lungs, chest, abdomen, and heart, and asbestosis,
a disease of the lungs, according to the EPA.

"Owners involved with building renovation work must be fully aware
of their responsibilities under the regulations to ensure the
proper removal, handling, packaging and disposal of asbestos-
containing materials," said Lee Dillard Adams, director for
MassDEP's central regional office in Worcester, in statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Manufacturing Files for Bankruptcy Again
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn McCarty of Bloomberg reports that Metex Manufacturing Corp.,
formerly known as Kentile Floors Inc., filed for bankruptcy
protection for the second time since 1992 to cope with asbestos
product-liability claims.

The company, which manages two industrial facilities in New
Jersey, listed assets and debt of more than $100 million each in
Chapter 11 documents filed on Nov. 10 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Manhattan.  Metex faces about about 6,000 active asbestos claims
tied to Kentile, according to court papers.

Planned insurance settlements, including a trust, "will provide
the best and fairest opportunity for all asbestos personal injury
claimants," Anthony Miceli, president of Great Neck, New York-
based Metex, said in court papers Nov. 10.

Kentile traced its roots to the late 1800s, when it began
manufacturing cork tile.  Until the mid-1980s, Kentile used
asbestos, a type of mineral which can cause lung disease when the
fibers are inhaled, in some tiles.  The company "experienced
severe difficulties" when it could no longer use asbestos,
according to court papers.

Kentile sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1992 while
facing about 20,000 asbestos claims.  The company changed its name
to Metex in 1998, according to court papers.

The case is In re Metex Mfg. Corp., 12-14554, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Intends to Settle Claims With Cash
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Haber of The Baltimore Business Journal reports that W.R.
Grace & Co. plans to pay cash, rather than stock, to settle a
portion of the asbestos-related claims against the company that
led it to seek bankruptcy protection.

Under the agreement, Grace would pay between $375 million and $490
million to redeem 10 million warrants.  The warrants would be
given to a trust to help pay off asbestos-related claims against
the Columbia chemical and building products maker, as part of a
plan Grace announced back in 2008.

Paying the warrants with cash rather than stock would not dilute
the value of the shares already held by shareholders, Grace said
Friday, Nov. 9, in a conference call with analysts.

"We feel good about this deal," Hudson LaForce III, Grace's chief
financial officer, said during the conference call.  "That's the
most important point."

The warrants would be redeemed once Grace emerges from bankruptcy.
The final amount will depend on Grace's share price during the 52
weeks after it emerges from bankruptcy.  The warrants would allow
the trust to buy Grace shares at $17 each.  The shares closed at
$64.32 on Nov. 8.

The agreement requires the approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in Wilmington, Del.  A hearing on the matter is scheduled for
Dec. 17.  Grace first announced the agreement on Oct. 31.

The warrants are part of Grace's plan to settle asbestos-related
injury claims.  The plan also includes $250 million in cash and
the rights to the proceeds of Grace's asbestos-related insurance
coverage.  It also includes deferred payments of $110 million a
year for five years starting in 2019 and $100 million a year for
ten years starting in 2024.

LaForce gave no timeline for when the company expects to emerge
from bankruptcy, which requires Bankruptcy Court approval.  Grace
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2001 amid
asbestos-related claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii DOH Cites School on Certification Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Hawaii Reporter, The Hawai'i State Department of
Health (DOH) has issued a Notice of Violation and Order against
Globeteck Group, Inc., for violations of the state's asbestos
training and certification regulations.  The violations were
discovered during routine re-certification activities and
subsequent inspection of records on Jan. 24, 2012.  The DOH has
imposed a penalty of $10,000.  Globeteck Group may request a
hearing to contest the allegations or order.

Globeteck Group was cited for two counts of issuing course
completion certificates to a student who did not successfully
complete two concurrently run training courses, as well as failing
to properly ensure and document that each person receiving a
certificate achieved a passing score on the examination.  DOH
collected the affected training certificates, and the individual
must retake the courses from an accredited training provider and
pass the exams prior to conducting regulated asbestos activities.

Other violations included failure to verify current certification
of all students who applied for refresher training courses.

To perform tasks related to asbestos, all individuals must be
certified each year in their particular areas.  Asbestos
professionals are required to attend annual training classes to
keep up to date with the knowledge they need to keep themselves,
others and the environment safe from exposure.  State regulations
govern the certification and training of asbestos professionals
and any asbestos-related activity (such as demolition, renovation
or repair) for commercial, public, institutional, schools, most
multi-family housing, and industrial buildings in Hawai'i.  Even
private single-family homeowners are recommended to hire certified
asbestos professionals when they suspect asbestos may create a
problem.

The DOH Indoor and Radiological Health Branch regulates asbestos
abatement activities, including the accreditation of asbestos
training providers which ensures properly trained and qualified
asbestos abatement workers, supervisors, inspectors, project
designers, project monitors and management planners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ripped Fibro Disrupts Traffic in Sydney's West
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that fire crews are
dealing with an asbestos scare in Sydney's west triggered by an
afternoon storm that ripped off a building's roof.

The incident has caused lengthy traffic jams on Parramatta Road,
Croydon, after the roof of an old Salvation Army building was
destroyed by strong winds.

HAZMAT crews are on the scene clearing up the debris from the
fibro roof, which is believed to contain asbestos.

Flying pieces of the roof damaged four cars, one of which has been
towed away.

A Fire and Rescue NSW spokesman said fire crews had "stopped the
stuff floating around in the atmosphere" but advised motorists to
avoid the area.

The eastbound lane of Parramatta Road has been reopened, but
traffic remains heavy.

The spokesman said the road would not have been reopened if the
scene was not safe, but advised motorists to wind their windows
up, turn off their air-conditioning and shut all their vents as an
extra precaution.

They should take an alternative route if possible, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Pinecraven Ltd Worker Appeals to Former Peers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sinead Holland of The Herts and Essex Observer reports that a mum
of four who claims her work in Bishop's Stortford caused her
terminal cancer is calling on former colleagues to help her battle
for justice.

Lorraine Berry, nee Trundle, who lives in Sawbridgeworth, has been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, aged just 48.

She is struggling to come to terms with the fact she will be
robbed of family life because, she claims, she was not protected
from asbestos dust while she worked for a development company in
Bishop's Stortford.

The cancer develops in the lining of the lungs and is caused by
inhaling asbestos fibers.  It is more commonly diagnosed in people
in their 60s 70s and 80s as it can take up to 50 years to develop,
but is aggressive and incurable no matter what age it strikes.

Lorraine has instructed expert asbestos lawyers to find answers
about why she is now terminally ill in the hope of winning
financial security for her husband Jason, their 13-year-old
daughter and her three children from a previous relationship.

She said: "To know that I will miss out on so many important
events, such as my youngest daughter going to university and my
children getting married is impossible to come to terms with.  I'm
being robbed of my family life."

She worked as an office administration assistant for Hockerill
Court property development company Pinecraven Ltd, which is no
longer trading, from 1983 to August 1985.

She alleges she was exposed to asbestos when she was based in a
temporary office in the old Rye Street Hospital while it was being
converted into flats.

Irwin Mitchell Solicitors is now appealing to any of her former
colleagues to get in touch as they may hold vital evidence about
the presence of asbestos and working practices at the firm.

Lorraine, said: "We're all absolutely devastated by my diagnosis
and are finding it so hard to come to terms with it because it's
so unexpected.  I've always been very active doing pilates, gym
and taking the dog for long walks and to now have cancer because
of something that is not my fault makes me angry and heartbroken."

She claimed: "The only time I can remember coming into contact
with asbestos is at the start of my career when I worked for
Pinecraven and we were based in an old hospital which the firm was
developing.

"When I stepped out of the office I was straight onto the building
site and there was dust everywhere which was kicked up by the
regeneration work going on around me.  Part of my job was to clean
the office and this was also always dusty because we had the
window open.

"The dust coated the window sill and was on all the furniture and
the workmen were always in and out of the office.  I was never
warned about the dangers of asbestos or given a protective mask to
wear."

Lorraine, who was working as a finance manager before she became
ill, began suffering from breathlessness and a dull ache in her
shoulder earlier this year.  At the beginning of April she went to
her GP who referred her to a chest physician and after numerous
tests she was given the diagnosis at Hertford Hospital that she
was suffering from mesothelioma.

She is now undergoing intensive chemotherapy which is hoped will
prolong her life, but cannot cure her.

Rosemary Giles -- rosemary.giles@irwinmitchell.com -- an
industrial illness expert at Irwin Mitchell's London office who is
representing Lorraine, said: "This is a tragic case and it is rare
for a person so young to be diagnosed with this horrendous
disease.

"Employers have known about the dangers of asbestos since the 60s
and 70s so there's no excuse for employees not to have been warned
about the dangers of the dust and provided with protective masks.

"I'm appealing to anyone who worked for Pinecraven Ltd between
1983 and 1985 to get in touch as they could help bring Lorraine
the justice she desperately wants."

Contact Rosemary Giles on 0870 1500 100 or email
rosemary.giles@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Asbestos Database Campaign Gets Support
--------------------------------------------------------------
The South Wales Argus News reports that a Monmouthshire AM is
backing a new campaign to give parents in Wales the right to know
in which school buildings asbestos is present.

The Right to Know: Asbestos in Schools Wales campaign was launched
after the recent alert at Cwmcarn High School.

The campaign was launched by Cardiff-based law firm New Law with
the support of a number of cancer charities and AM Nick Ramsay is
supporting it.

He will chair a new cross party group which will examine the
feasibility of establishing a central schools asbestos database.

Parents would be able to access it online, check whether asbestos
is present in any school and whether a management plan is in place
where it is present.

Mr. Ramsay said: "It is only fair that parents are able to check
whether their childrens' schools are affected by this hidden
killer.

"The danger that asbestos represents to children and teachers
alike should no longer be put to one side, and we will be strongly
encouraging local authorities to voluntarily share their data
around asbestos in schools."

Monmouthshire council is the first local authority to sign up.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Sponsors CURE Media E-Book Release
----------------------------------------------------------------
The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd is sponsoring
the release of CURE media groups e-book, Understanding
Mesothelioma to help educate mesothelioma patients and their
families about the asbestos cancer.  Originally available as a
hard copy, Understanding Mesothelioma is now available for the
Nook, Kindle and Sony e-reader for $9.99.  All earnings from the
sales of Understanding Mesothelioma will benefit the Asbestos
Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), a non-profit organization
committed to preventing asbestos-related diseases through
spreading awareness through education and advocating for a ban on
asbestos.

Understanding Mesothelioma continues CUREs mission to translate
complex medical information into understandable, consumer-friendly
materials that inspire patients and caregivers.  The book is the
first in a series from CURE media group and offers mesothelioma
patients and their loved ones an in-depth look into the causes of
this this rare and aggressive disease, the latest in treatment
information, legal matters, survivorship, caregiving and other
invaluable resources for people who are dealing with a
mesothelioma diagnosis.

"Electronic books are the future, so it only makes sense for us to
offer this wonderful resource in the e-reader format," said John
Langdoc, mesothelioma lawyer at Baron and Budd.  "We are proud to
help bring this information to a wider audience of readers in a
more environmentally friendly format."

The mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd has a long history of
giving back to the mesothelioma community.  The firm has is a
platinum sponsor of ADAO and was a cornerstone donor and executive
advisory board member of the International Mesothelioma Program
(IMP) at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston.  Baron and Budd's
President and Managing Shareholder, Russell Budd, is the only
attorney who has been asked to serve on the Foundation Board of
the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

The e-book Understanding Mesothelioma is now available on
BarnesandNoble.com for the Nook, Amazon.com for the Kindle, on
iTunes and for the Sony e-reader.  Physical copies of the book are
available at the Baron and Budd mesothelioma website Mesothelioma
News.

                       About Baron & Budd

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has been
Protecting Whats Right for asbestos sufferers and their families
for nearly 35 years.  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.  Contact Baron
and Budd at 1.866.855.1229 for additional information on
mesothelioma treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment
centers and mesothelioma attorneys. http://baronandbudd.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tring Road Fibro Scandal Council Worker Speaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bucks Herald (UK) reports that a council worker involved in
the Tring Road asbestos scandal has spoken out claiming staff were
ordered to break up and dump dangerous asbestos in the cemetery.

The man, who wants to remain anonymous, says his superiors at
Aylesbury Town Council issued the orders which he felt, if he did
not comply with, could have seen him facing the sack.

He said: "No one's health seemed to be important.  If we'd said
'no', we'd have been given a hard time.  We'd have been?spoken to
like morons.  I just wanted to do my job and go home at the end of
the day."

He said the large amount of asbestos has accumulated at the Crown
Leys allotment site where the council had a 'yard', after
allotment holders had vacated and left behind rubbish which
workers then cleared away.

He added: "It was in whole sheets at one point, and was left there
for ages.  I kept asking what to do with it, as it shouldn't have
been left there, but was told to leave it."

He says the workers were then instructed to break up the asbestos
and put it into bags, where it was left for around another four
weeks.

He said: "I was then instructed to put it in the hole (at Tring
Road Cemetery).  A four ton digger was hired, and we dug a 13ft
hole.

"They thought if we went down 13ft, no one would ever get down
there.  A triple burial only goes down 8ft 6ins.

"I did say we shouldn't be doing this.  But I would have been
disciplined if I'd refused for not listening to a direct order
from my bosses.

"Half a van of asbestos bags were dumped in there and then,
because there was no skip down there at the time, about three van
loads of rubbish went in there as well.

"They put as much as they could in, but had to dig another two
holes to get rid of it all."

He also claims a disgruntled employee left and 'started kicking up
a stink about it all.'

Three workers were then paid a full day's overtime to take the
rubbish out of the holes -- but crucially they had forgotten where
they buried the asbestos.

"The boss's thinking was that if we disposed of the asbestos
properly, we'd have to prove where we'd got it from and why we had
it," he added.

"The impression that came over was that we didn't have the money
to get rid of it and if we started spending people would want to
know why."

Recently, the leader of the council Mike Smith said the council
always had sufficient funds to dispose of the asbestos.

A joint investigation has been launched by Aylesbury Town Council
and Bucks County Council's environmental enforcement team.

Mr. Smith said: "We're doing our own investigation, as is the
county council, and we will be sharing information.

"We will be interviewing around eight to 10 people of varying
levels in order to get the facts."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mill Street Bldg Case Sentencing Delayed Again
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffallo News reports that City Judge Thomas M. DiMillo
delayed sentencing again for a Texas company whose plans to
renovate the shell of a Mill Street building were blocked by the
discovery of asbestos.

Liberty Plant Maintenance is scheduled to return to court Dec. 20.
The company, owned by a former Dunkirk man, Scott J. Krzyzanowski,
was found guilty by default, because it did not contest the
charges, of leaving the building and a Dumpster filled with
asbestos-containing materials unattended since the fall of 2010.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has since stepped into
the case, fencing off the site and finding arsenic in soil samples
near the former power plant for a defunct paper mill.  Two years
ago, Liberty's cleanup of 89 Mill St. was blocked by the state
Labor Department's demand for an asbestos study.

"It's still an unsafe structure.  The general violations have been
not been removed," Deputy Corporation Counsel Matthew E. Brooks
said.  "The city doesn't care who pays for it -- the defendant or
the federal government.  We just want to see some progress."


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.




                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *