CAR_Public/121123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, November 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 233

                                Headlines

AON PLC: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Settlement Approval Pending
APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California
BOULDER ICE: Recalls Ice Cream and Gelato Products With Peanuts
CATAMARAN CORP: Feb. 5 Hearing on Merger-Related Suits Deal Set
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over License Breach Dismissed

CENTRO PROPERTIES: ASIC Bans PwC Auditor Over Account Errors
COMSCORE INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit in Illinois
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Still Awaits Merger Suit Deal Order
CREXUS INVESTMENT: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: 50 People Join Class Action

DOLE FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Banana Production Practices
ELEPHANTITO: Recalls 180 Woven Cotton Girl's Pajama Sets
FACEBOOK: Judge Considers Modified Sponsored Stories Suit Deal
FIRST SOLAR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Smilovits" Suit
FMC CORP: Awaits Decision Related to Indirect Purchase Claims

FMC CORP: Still Defends German Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Dealers Suit v. GMCL Remains Pending
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defends RESPA Violations Suits vs. Unit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Still Defends MERS-Related Class Suit
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: More Claimants Sign Up in Class Action

INTEL CORP: Trial in McAfee Acquisition Suit to begin in Jan.
INTEL CORP: Still Defends Unfair Trade Practices Class Suits
J.P. BODEN: Recalls 1,130 Children's 100% Cotton Pajamas
LENDER PROCESSING: Seeks Dismissal Amended "St. Clair" Suit
MICHAEL GOURMET: Recalls Wild Alaskan Sockeye Salmon Batch# 1443

NEW FRONTIER: Faces Class Actions Over Proposed LFP Buyout
NRG ENERGY: Unit Defends 5 Suits in N.Y., N.J., Penn. & Maryland
OCEAN SPRAY: Cranberry Growers File Faces Class Action
OMNICARE INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
OMNICARE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit in Kentucky

PNM RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling in "Begay" Suit Dismissal Appeal
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Jan. 17 Hearing Set for Nudity Ban Suit
SKYPE: Sued in Calif. Over Unauthorized Subscription Renewals
SLM CORP: Approval of $24.15MM "Arthur" Suit Settlement Appealed
SLM CORP: Received Final OK of $35MM Securities Suit Settlement

STANLEY'S MARKET: Recalls 16,100 Lbs. of Kielbasa Products
SUPPORT.COM INC: Awaits Approval of Consumer Suit Settlement
UBER: Disputes Hefty Fines Over Ride-Share Services
UNION DRILLING: Awaits OK of Deal Settling Merger-Related Suit
VANGUARD NATURAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Delaware Suit

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Medical Still Monitoring WR Grace Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.05BB Reserves at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borgwarner Inc. Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sleepers Have Fibro From Train Brake Linings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Defendants' Penalties Reduced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Razed Leicester School Displaces 400
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMU Renovation Goes to Third Student Vote

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Water Mains Workers Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Asbestos Cases Added to St. Clair Docket
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vincent Keeps Up Bid to Recover Cleanup Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Environment Boss Moves for Proper Fibro Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Majority Holders Divest 5.98M Shares

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Pushes for Enforcement of OSHA Standards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joliet Residents Bar Concrete Processing Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD Specialist Joins Libby's CARD Staff
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wagin School's Hardie Products Blamed for Meso
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingston Foreshore's Fibro Find Contained

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskatchewan to Publish Contaminated Bldgs List
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naturally Occurring Fibro Shuts Motocross Track
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Landfill Dumped at Glendowie Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Found at Queensland Children's Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S&P Assigns 'BB-' to Sealed Air's Proposed Notes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NDP Admits Registry List May Not be Comprehensive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ETU Stays Work Restrictions on Meter Boards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso-Lawyer Says Job Includes Lot of Forensics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Notorious Health Violator Holds Record for Fines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Co, 72 Others Face Asbestos Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup Shuts Madison Library for 2 Weeks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work on Breton School Fibro Issue Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mendocino Air Quality Board, GSA Mend Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Scheduled for Abatement Catches Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mandatory Saskatchewan Asbestos Registry Mulled

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Corp, Michelin Face Mesothelioma Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Kills 13 Years After Boiler Repair Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AWU Relates Unions' Role in Hardie Scandal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor MPs Spotlight Former Solicitor's History
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Relates $9MM Verdict v Dow Chemical

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Clarifies Role in Barraba Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Credit Cap Hits Sri Lanka Fibro Sheets Industry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Rules on Celotex PD Committee Fees




                          *********

AON PLC: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Settlement Approval Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance industry
by the Attorney General of New York and other regulators,
purported classes of clients filed civil litigation against Aon
plc and other companies under a variety of legal theories,
including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and
statutory theories and federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") theories.  The federal
actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and a state court collective action was
filed in California.  In the New Jersey actions, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims in
separate orders in August and October 2007, respectively.  In
August 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissals of most, but not all, of the claims.  In
March 2011, Aon entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
documenting a settlement of the civil cases consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Under that
agreement, Aon will pay $550,000 in exchange for dismissal of the
class claims.  This agreement received final approval in the trial
court in March 2012.  In April 2012, certain entities that had
objected to the settlement filed notices of appeal from the trial
court judgment.  Several non-class claims brought by individual
plaintiffs who opted out of the class action proceeding will
remain pending, but the Company does not believe these present
material exposure to the Company individually or in the aggregate.
The outcome of these lawsuits, and the amount of any losses or
other payments that may result, cannot be estimated at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust class action lawsuits against Apple Inc. remain pending
in California, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended September 29, 2012.

The related cases The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation
(formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple
Computer, Inc.); and Somers v. Apple Inc. have been filed on
January 3, 2005, July 21, 2006, and December 31, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect
purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video
purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law.  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees.  Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights
management free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an
order requiring the Company to license its digital rights
management to all competing music players.  The cases are
currently pending.


BOULDER ICE: Recalls Ice Cream and Gelato Products With Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the ongoing Sunland Inc. nationwide peanut recall, Boulder
Ice Cream announced a voluntary recall of certain ice cream and
gelato products manufactured using peanut ingredients recalled by
Sunland Inc. due to potential Salmonella contamination.  For more
information on the Sunland recall, please see the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's Web site: http://is.gd/Zv5HT7or read
Sunland's official statement at:

    http://www.sunlandinc.com/788/html/pdfs/SunlandRecall.pdf

The below lots of Boulder Ice Cream Peanut Butter Cup pints (16
oz), Sorano Gelato Chocolate Peanut Butter pints (16 oz), and
additional food service products are being voluntarily recalled
because peanuts possibly used in the production of these
identified products may have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and those
with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Boulder Ice Cream was notified by their contract manufacturer,
Fresca Foods, Inc. located in Louisville, Colorado, that Sunland
peanuts were and may have been used in the production of certain
peanut butter products in the past; therefore Boulder Ice Cream is
voluntarily participating in the recall.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).

The products were distributed nationally to numerous large
supermarket chains; the larger format container products were
distributed to food service.

The specifics of the affected products are as follows:

       UPC        Product Description          Package Size
   -----------    -------------------          ------------
   65388802142    Boulder Ice Cream            16 oz
                  Peanut Butter Cup
   Best By Dates: Best By 08-16-13 or earlier

   65388807004    Sorano Gelato Chocolate      16 oz
                  Peanut Butter
   Best By Dates: Best By 08-10-13 or earlier

   65388850103    Boulder Homemade Chocolate   5 L Pan
                  Peanut Butter Gelato
   Best By Dates: Best By 10-03-12 or earlier

   None           Boulder Ice Cream -          2.5 Gal Tub
                  Peanut Butter Cup
   Best By Dates: Best By 07-24-12 or earlier

   None           Boulder Ice Cream - Elvis    2.5 Gal Tub
   Best By Dates: Best By 07-24-12 or earlier

   65388806112    Yoki Bliss - Peanut Butter   4 x 1 Gal
   Best By Dates: Mfg Date 09-24-12 or earlier

The UPC is located on the side and the Best By Date is imprinted
on the bottom of each 16 oz consumer pint container and on the
sides of food service containers.  All Yoki Bliss products contain
a manufacture date.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm328997.htm

Consumers who have purchased Boulder Ice Cream products with the
above UPC and Best By Dates are urged to discard the product
immediately.  For additional questions consumers can contact the
company at 303-494-0366, which is operational Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time.


CATAMARAN CORP: Feb. 5 Hearing on Merger-Related Suits Deal Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for approval of Catamaran Corporation's settlement of
merger-related lawsuits filed in Delaware is currently scheduled
for February 5, 2013, according to the Company's November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In July 2012, following the recent completion of its merger (the
"Merger") with Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc. ("Catalyst"), SXC
Health Solutions Corp. unveiled a new name and brand for the
combined company.  The new name, Catamaran Corporation, reflects
the union of two of the industry's fastest-growing pharmacy
benefits management (PBM) companies to create a PBM with a nimble
and flexible approach to helping clients navigate today's
turbulent healthcare environment in order to contain costs and
enhance the well-being of its members.

A number of lawsuits were filed by alleged Catalyst stockholders
challenging the Company's proposed merger transaction with
Catalyst following the Company's announcement on April 18, 2012,
that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with
respect to the Merger.  The complaints in the actions name as
defendants Catalyst, Catalyst's directors, the Company and certain
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company (collectively, "the
defendants").  Five complaints were filed in two different venues:
four complaints in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
and one in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of the State of
Maryland.  The plaintiffs in the purported class action complaints
generally alleged, among other things, that (i) the Catalyst
directors violated their fiduciary duties in connection with their
negotiation of and agreement to the merger agreement and the
Merger by, among other things, agreeing to allegedly inadequate
consideration and preclusive terms, (ii) the Company and certain
of its wholly-owned subsidiaries allegedly aided and abetted the
Catalyst directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and (iii)
the joint proxy statement/prospectus of the Company and Catalyst
relating to the Merger allegedly included certain materially
misleading disclosures and omissions.  The plaintiffs sought,
among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
Merger and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the
costs and disbursements of the action.  On May 25, 2012, the
Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision and order
consolidating the Delaware cases.

On June 25, 2012, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to a settlement with the remaining
parties to the action in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware.  Without agreeing that any of the plaintiffs' claims
have merit, the defendants agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, to make additional disclosures
described in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed
June 25, 2012, which supplemented and formed part of the joint
proxy statement/prospectus of the Company and Catalyst dated
June 1, 2012.  In July 2012, the Maryland case was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in that action.  On October 24, 2012,
the parties to the remaining Delaware cases filed a stipulation of
settlement, which is subject to approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery following notice to the Catalyst stockholders.  The
hearing with respect to such approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery is currently scheduled for February 5, 2013.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the Delaware Court
of Chancery will approve the settlement.  The settlement terms
provide that the Delaware cases will be dismissed with prejudice
against all defendants.  The settlement did not affect the amount
of the merger consideration paid to the stockholders of Catalyst
in the Merger.  As of September 30, 2012, the Company had recorded
an immaterial liability in the consolidated financial statements
relating to the settlement of this matter.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over License Breach Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Nov. 19 announced the dismissal of a
purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company and
another cellular operator in March 2010, at the plaintiffs'
request.  The purported class action was filed in connection with
allegations that the defendants breached their cellular license by
failing to purchase insurance against monetary liability which the
defendants may suffer due to bodily damages that allegedly may be
caused by cellular radiation.  If the lawsuit was certified as a
class action, the total amount claimed was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS4.2 billion, out of which
NIS2.1 billion was attributed to the Company individually.

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is an Israeli cellular
provider.


CENTRO PROPERTIES: ASIC Bans PwC Auditor Over Account Errors
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Spectator reports that the Australian Securities and
Investment Commission has banned the PricewaterhouseCoopers
auditor who worked on Centro Properties Group's fiscal 2007
accounts, which contained errors that later led to a class action
against the group.

The corporate watchdog said in a statement that it had issued an
enforceable undertaking against Stephen Cougle, a Melbourne-based
partner at the accounting firm.

The undertaking means Mr. Cougle has been blocked from performing
any professional accounting services until June 30, 2015.

In a statement, PwC said it acknowledged there was a deficiency in
the work undertaken from Centro in 2007.

"I led the Centro audit team and take responsibility for the
work," Mr. Cougle said in the statement.

ASIC commissioner Mr. John Price said auditors were important
gatekeepers for business and that audit quality was essential in
maintaining confidence and integrity in Australia's markets.

"Following auditing standards is not merely a compliance hurdle to
clear," he said.

"Investors will not be properly informed where audit deficiencies
result in material misstatements in financial reports not being
detected and addressed."

Billions of dollars in errors relating to Centro's short-term debt
contained in its 2007 financial results left the company on the
brink of collapse.

The mistakes resulted in a class action against both Centro and
PwC, which was settled earlier this year for AUD200 million.


COMSCORE INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 2011, comScore, Inc. received notice that Mike
Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other
things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act as well as unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs.  Based on review of these claims, the Company believes
that they are without merit, and intends to vigorously protect and
defend itself.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Still Awaits Merger Suit Deal Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is still awaiting court
approval of its settlement to resolve merger-related class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On July 2, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of SureWest
Communications.

Prior to the completion of the SureWest Merger on July 2, 2012,
six putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged SureWest
shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with
SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH
Acquisition II Corp, SureWest and members of the SureWest board of
directors have been named as defendants.  Five shareholder actions
were filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer County, and
one shareholder action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California.  The actions are
called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed February
17, 2012, Errecart v. Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012,
Springer v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 9, 2012,
Aievoli v. Oldham, et al., filed March 15, 2012, and Waterbury v.
SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 26, 2012, and the
federal action is called Broering v. Oldham, et al., filed April
18, 2012.  The actions generally allege, among other things, that
each member of the SureWest board of directors breached fiduciary
duties to SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of
SureWest to the Company for consideration that allegedly was
unfair to the SureWest shareholders and agreed to terms that
allegedly unduly restrict other bidders from making a competing
offer.  The complaints also allege that the Company and SureWest
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly
committed by the members of the SureWest board of directors.  The
Broering complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on March 28,
2012, did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the merger,
that SureWest's board should have appointed an independent
committee to negotiate the transaction and that SureWest should
have gone back to another bidder to create a competitive bid
process.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including an order to prevent
the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon
terms and/or an award of unspecified monetary damages.  On
March 14, 2012, the Placer County Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Needles, Errecart and Springer actions into a
single action under the caption In re SureWest Communications
Shareholder Litigation.  Under the terms of this order, all cases
subsequently filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Placer, that relate to the same subject
matter and involve similar questions of law or fact were to be
consolidated with these cases as well.  This included the Aievoli
and Waterbury cases.  On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff in
Waterbury filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her complaint
without prejudice.  On May 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the federal Court entered an order staying the
Broering action for 90 days.  The federal Court subsequently
extended the stay of the Broering action until December 31, 2012.

On June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a proposed settlement of
all of the shareholder actions without any admission of liability
by the Company or the other defendants.  Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, SureWest agreed to make, and subsequently made,
certain additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC in advance of the special meeting of SureWest
shareholders held on June 12, 2012.  The proposed settlement also
provided that plaintiffs' counsel collectively are to receive
attorneys' fees of $0.5 million, of which the Company is to pay
$36 thousand, with the balance to be paid by SureWest and its
insurer.  The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the
Placer County Superior Court.  Upon approval by the court, the
consolidated state court actions and the federal action will be
dismissed with prejudice.


CREXUS INVESTMENT: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CreXus Investment Corp. is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Annaly
Capital Management, for $12.50 a share or about $820 million,
shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: 50 People Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
South Florida Business Journal, citing the Orlando Sentinel,
reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed against Darden
Restaurants in Miami federal court in September now includes over
50 plaintiffs, the Orlando Sentinel reports.

The suit alleges that employees were required to work off the
clock and perform too much non-tipped work.

One of the original employees in the suit was removed because he
worked for Darden more than three years before it was filed, the
Sentinel reported.

Orlando-based Darden owns and operates Red Lobster, Olive Garden,
LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Seasons 52, The Capital
Grille, Eddie V's and Yard House restaurants.


DOLE FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Banana Production Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Leader reports that a lawsuit filed against Dole
Food accuses the fruit and vegetable company of misleading
consumers about the sustainability of banana-growing practices at
a contractor's plantation in Guatemala.

The class-action lawsuit filed in federal court by Seattle-based
law firm Hagens Berman alleges that despite Dole's promises to act
as a safe and sustainable company in communities where its
products are grown, the company knowingly purchased bananas from a
plantation in Guatemala that devastated the local environment and
community.

Dole did not return calls seeking comment.

The suit alleges that Dole's false claims to its customers violate
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law and California Common Law in relation to fraud and
unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit seeks a ruling from the court
affirming that Dole deceived its customers.  The plaintiffs are
also seeking damages, and a court order requiring that the company
notify all plaintiffs and class members about its banana
production methods.

In one example cited in the complaint, a contractor that supplies
Dole with about 290 million pounds of bananas built a dam in
Guatemala to protect its banana and oil-palm plantations.  The
lawsuit alleges the dam resulted in severe flooding downstream
from the banana plantation, destroying local farmers' crops and
causing significant economic losses.  The plantation's development
also drained 1,200 acres of wetlands, the complaint alleges.

Various governmental and environmental groups, including the
Guatemalan Ministry of Agriculture and Water & Sanitation Health
Inc., have confirmed the actions of the plantation directly
resulted in flooding and water contamination in the area, the
complaint says.

Dole reached an agreement in September to settle 38 lawsuits filed
in the US and Nicaragua alleging pesticide-related injuries.  The
complaints centered on a pesticide banned in 1977 --
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) -- which was used for more than two
decades to control worms on crops.  The terminated lawsuits
included two Nicaraguan judgments totaling $907.5 million.

In April 2011, Dole announced it was selling bananas grown in
Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala on Rainforest Alliance
Certified farms, which meet the standards of the Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN), a coalition of leading conservation
groups.  The standards include metrics on water and soil
conservation and wildlife protection, along with labor and
community standards.  The bananas were to be sold at select
retailers throughout the US.


ELEPHANTITO: Recalls 180 Woven Cotton Girl's Pajama Sets
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Elephantito, of Key Biscayne, Florida, and manufacturer,
Catalogo S.A.C., of Lima, Peru, announced a voluntary recall of
about 180 girl's pajamas.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves children's woven cotton pajama sets with
style number JP 12 FL.  The style number is printed on the
garment's hang tag.  The sets are printed with a small pink flower
and green leaf pattern with a short-sleeve, five-button shirt and
a matching pair of shorts.  The sets were sold in girl's sizes 1
to 8.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13045.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold at
children's boutiques and specialty stores nationwide and online
from August 2008 to September 2011 for between $30 and $45.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas from
children and stop using them.  Consumers can return the pajamas to
the place of purchase for a full refund, exchange or store credit.
Elephantito may be reached toll-free at (888) 776-9541, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
http://www.elephantito.com/for more information.  Consumers can
also e-mail the firm at customerservice@elephantito.com


FACEBOOK: Judge Considers Modified Sponsored Stories Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Markets Are Open reports that a U.S. judge is considering a
modified settlement proposal offered by Facebook Inc. in the class
action suit over Sponsored Stories.

Facebook is trying to settle the case that is brought by angry
people that the social network has broadcasted their Liked of
particular companies as adverts without paying them for the same
or providing them with a choice to pot out.

It was earlier this year when Judge Richard Seeborg had rejected
the first settlement that was offered by Facebook and which could
have allowed members to decide how their personal data was used.
However, it would not have eliminated its use and would have given
$10 million as legal fees and $10 million to charity.

Judge Seeborg has stated that the agreement was not good enough
since it was not offering any money to the users of Facebook.
Presently, Facebook is offering its users in the U.S., who
appeared in a Sponsored Story without consent a sum up to $10 each
from the same $20 million settlement deal.  The case concerns
potentially 100 million users, however, if the money did not all
go to the company and the lawyers, the remaining will be given to
charity.

The company has also said that it would make a new tool to let its
members to see any Sponsored Stories that come up on their content
and will have a choice to opt out.

Judge Seeborg is considering the offer after a hearing in San
Francisco court.  He seemed pretty critical regarding the revised
plan and promised a ruling very soon.

Judge Seeborg has said that he will mull over the objections, as
per the San Jose Mercury News.  In case he gives a clean chit to a
preliminary approval of Facebook's agreement offer, other third-
party groups will be capable of opposing the offer before a final
hearing happens.


FIRST SOLAR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Smilovits" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit
titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers.  The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28,
2012.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects.  The action
includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and expenses to
the putative class, including attorneys' fees.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend
this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes").  The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.  The
Court has not yet ruled on that motion.

The Company says the action is still in the initial stages and
there has been no discovery.  Accordingly, the Company is not in a
position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on its
financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range
of potential loss, if any.


FMC CORP: Awaits Decision Related to Indirect Purchase Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation is awaiting a Canadian Supreme Court decision with
respect to the issue of viability of claims of indirect purchasers
of hydrogen peroxide in putative class actions against the Company
and five other major hydrogen peroxide producers, according to the
Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In 2005 after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the Company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada.  The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million.  On
September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005.  The Company's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.
Since then, the case has been largely dormant.

In early 2012, the parties began a more detailed dialogue on
discovery and at a hearing on April 5, 2012, they requested the
judge to issue more specific guidance on document production.  The
court instead stayed the litigation pending resolution by the
Canadian Supreme Court of the viability of indirect purchaser
claims.  The Canadian Supreme Court heard argument on that issue
in October 2012.

Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect
to the merits, the Company says it is unable to develop a
reasonable estimate of its potential exposure of loss at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.


FMC CORP: Still Defends German Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to
have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European
competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their
legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm.  The single
entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against
European producers, including FMC Corporation's wholly-owned
Spanish subsidiary, Foret.  Initial defense briefs were filed in
April 2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first
quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were
discussed.  At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court
indicated that it was considering seeking guidance from the
European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts
have jurisdiction over these claims.  After submission of written
comments on this issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge
announced that she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the
ECJ.  Such a reference to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months for
completion.

Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a
novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border
"class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or
German law -- the Company is unable to develop a reasonable
estimate of its potential exposure of loss at this time.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Dealers Suit v. GMCL Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought by Canadian dealers against a
subsidiary of General Motors Company remains pending, according to
the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers
(the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL.  In May 2009, in the context of the global
restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might
be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the
Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their
exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down
their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009, or
such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31,
2010.  The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements.  The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that
the wind-down agreements are rescindable.  The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" C$750
million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages.
On March 1, 2011, the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues,
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff
Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to
proving individual damages).  On June 22, 2011 the court granted
GMCL permission to appeal the class certification decision.

On March 26, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed GMCL's
appeal of the class certification order.  Accordingly the case
will proceed as a class action.  Twenty-six dealers within the
certified class definition have indicated that they will not
participate.

The Company says the current prospects for liability are
uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable, it has no
accrual relating to this litigation.  The Company cannot estimate
the range of reasonably possible loss in the event of liability,
as the case presents a variety of different legal theories, none
of which GMCL believes are valid.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defends RESPA Violations Suits vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. is defending a subsidiary against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Beginning in December 2011, one of the Company's U.S. mortgage
insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage
insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in
three putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain
"captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  Eight additional
putative class actions, making similar allegations, have since
been filed in which the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiary is
again named as one of numerous defendants.  Those cases are
captioned as follows: McCarn, et al. v. HSB, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et
al, v. First Third Bank, et al., United States District court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v Bank of
America, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage
Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National
Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et
al., United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.,
United States District Court for the Central District of
California; and Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend these remaining
actions.

Genworth Financial Inc. is a financial security company that
provides insurance, wealth management, investment and financial
solutions to more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries.  It is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia
and have approximately 6,400 employees.  It had $114.3 billion of
total assets and $16.5 billion of stockholders' equity as of
December 31, 2011.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Still Defends MERS-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2012, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated was named
a defendant in a putative class action filed on behalf of all 88
counties in Ohio against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other
financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system (MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording
of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law
and seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required
to record every mortgage and assignment on real property located
in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The
complaint also seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although
Huntington has not been named as a defendant in the other cases,
similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: More Claimants Sign Up in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lalonde, writing for The Gazette, reports that every time
there is a significant development in the C$27-billion class-
action case against Canada's three major tobacco companies, more
Quebec smokers and relatives of deceased smokers sign up to cash
in.

Last week, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the federal
government is released from liability if the tobacco companies
lose the two combined class-action suits filed against them, which
means the tobacco companies would be on the hook to pay all
damages if the plaintiffs win.

"We always get a wave of registrations after stories (about the
class action suits) are published in the media," said Marie-Soleil
Boivin, a spokeswoman for the Quebec Council on Tobacco and
Health, which launched one of the two suits.

At last count, about 8,000 of an estimated 1.9 million potential
benefactors in the case had registered.  But Ms. Boivin noted that
eligible claimants are not obliged to register before the court
procedure is concluded, and the process is expected to last at
least two more years.

"If there is a judgment favorable to the plaintiffs, we would do a
big media blitz to publicize it so that people would know to come
forward," Ms. Boivin said.

By registering early, claimants will be kept abreast of
developments in the case, and lawyers can also garner helpful
information from those who register.

The two Quebec class-action suits, which are being tried together,
are the most advanced of any class-action suit against tobacco
companies anywhere in the world.

Back in September 1998, Cecilia LeTourneau filed a motion to
exercise a class action on behalf of all Quebecers dependent on
the nicotine contained in the cigarettes manufactured by Imperial
Tobacco, JTI-Macdonald, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges.

Lawyers are claiming C$10,000 for each member of this group,
potentially 1.8 million people.  This includes $5,000 for non-
pecuniary damages related to their dependence, and another $5,000
for each member for breach of their rights under the Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and for ignoring certain
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Two months later, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health and
Jean-Yves Blais (who has since died) filed a similar motion, this
one on behalf of the estimated 90,000 Quebecers who suffer or have
suffered from lung, larynx or throat cancer or emphysema.

That group is asking for C$100,000 each for their "loss of
enjoyment, suffering and physical and moral pain, shortened life
expectancy," etc. plus C$5,000 each in exemplary damages for
"unlawful and intentional interference of a right guaranteed under
the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and for false
advertising contrary to the Consumer Protection Act".

To be eligible for the nicotine-dependant group, a person would
have had to have been dependent on nicotine in the cigarettes
manufactured by one of the three companies named on Sept. 10, 1998
or be the legal heir of someone who was dependent at that time but
who died since without having stopped smoking.

To be eligible for the cancer group, known as the CQTS group, a
person must have resided in Quebec and been a victim of lung,
larynx or throat cancer of have suffered emphysema on or since
Nov. 19, 1998, after having directly inhaled cigarette smoke.

The person must have smoked at least 15 cigarettes per day, for at
least five years.  The heirs of deceased persons who meet the
criteria are also eligible.

"We are very confident we will get a positive judgment," said
Philippe Trudel -- phtrudel@trudeljohnston.com -- a partner in the
law firm Trudel & Johnston Trudel.

But smokers shouldn't count on pocketing the amounts claimed in
these suits, he warned.  The judge will decide how much in damages
claimants will be awarded, and legal fees will be deducted from
that award.

Quebec was the first Canadian province to introduce class actions
(in 1979).  These actions allow an individual plaintiff to file a
lawsuit on behalf of a class of persons who are in a similar
situation.

To find out if you are eligible to join this class action, go to
cqts.qc.ca/recours/en/


INTEL CORP: Trial in McAfee Acquisition Suit to begin in Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County, California Superior Court had scheduled
trial in a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from Intel
Corporation's acquisition of McAfee Inc. to begin in January 2013,
according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 29, 2012.

On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of McAfee's common stock for $48.00 per share.  Four
McAfee shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits in Santa
Clara County, California Superior Court, challenging the proposed
transaction.  The cases were ordered consolidated in September
2010.  Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint that names the
former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and
alleges that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary
duties and that Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.
The complaint requests rescission of the merger agreement and such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount.  In June 2012, plaintiffs'
damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for
purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
and appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the
class representative.  In January 2012, the court also scheduled
trial to begin in January 2013.  In March 2012, defendants filed a
petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate
to reverse the class certification order, which was denied in June
2012.  In March 2012, the court entered an order, at defendants'
request, holding that plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial
in this case, and ordered a bench trial.  In April 2012,
plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal
for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of
appeal denied in July 2012.  Defendants filed their motion for
summary judgment in August 2012.  Oral argument on that motion was
scheduled for November 2, 2012.

Because the resolution of the contemplated motions for summary
judgment and other potential motions related to damages may
materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, because
discovery is not yet complete, and because plaintiffs seek
equitable relief including rescission, the Company says it is
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.  The Company
disputes the class-action claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The Company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


INTEL CORP: Still Defends Unfair Trade Practices Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits in
various states alleging unfair trade practices, according to the
Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts.  These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. (AMD) in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware (AMD litigation).  Like the AMD
litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that Intel engaged
in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws
by, among other things, providing discounts and rebates to the
Company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near-exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors,
interfering with certain AMD product launches, and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups.  The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing the Company's
microprocessors.  The Company disputes the class-action claims and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court has appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain PCs containing products
sold by Intel.  In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report
and Recommendation (Class Report) denying the motion to certify a
class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's Class Report, and a hearing on those objections was held
in March 2011.  In September 2012, the court ruled that an
evidentiary hearing will be necessary to enable the court to rule
on the objections to the Special Master's Class Report, to resolve
the motion to certify the class, and to resolve a separate motion
to exclude certain testimony and evidence from MDL plaintiffs'
expert.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing.
At the Company's request, the court in the California actions has
agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware
district court rules on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings.

Based on the procedural posture and the nature of the cases,
including, but not limited to, the fact that the Delaware district
court has requested an evidentiary hearing and has not yet ruled
on class certification issues, the Company says it is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from these matters.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The Company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


J.P. BODEN: Recalls 1,130 Children's 100% Cotton Pajamas
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J.P. Boden & Co. Ltd., of the United Kingdom, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,130 children's pajamas.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled products are 100 percent cotton pajamas for children
1.5 (18 months) to 14 years old.  The brand name "Mini Boden"
appears on a label attached to the back of the neck of the tops
and the center of the back of the waist on the bottoms and on the
packaging.  Each pack contains two long-sleeved tops and two
bottoms in one of the following color schemes: black, white and
blue with motorcycles print; white, blue and pink with rocket and
stars print; or a light blue, blue and green with cars print.  The
garments were sold as pajamas.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13044.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Turkey and sold
exclusively at Bodenusa.com from July 21, 2012, to September 17,
2012, for about $48.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pajamas and contact
Boden for a full refund, exchange or merchandise credit.  J.P.
Boden Services Inc. may be reached toll-free at (866) 206-9508,
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time daily, or at
http://www.bodenusa.com/,then click on Product Recall for more
information.


LENDER PROCESSING: Seeks Dismissal Amended "St. Clair" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 2010, Lender Processing Services, Inc. was served
with a complaint entitled St. Clair Shores General Employees'
Retirement System v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al.,
which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  The putative class action seeks damages for
alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's disclosures relating to its default operations.  An
amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2011.  LPS filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on July 18, 2011, and the plaintiff filed
a response to the Company's motion on
September 12, 2011.  The complaint was dismissed on March 30,
2012.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second and third
amended complaint on May 8, 2012, and October 5, 2012,
respectively.

The Company had said in its October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012, that intends to file a motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint by November 16, 2012.


MICHAEL GOURMET: Recalls Wild Alaskan Sockeye Salmon Batch# 1443
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gourmet Delicacies recalls Wild Alaskan Sockeye Salmon
Batch# 1443 sold in all Whole Foods in the State of Florida during
the months of June 12, 2012, through November 16, 2012, because of
possible health risk:

   * 4 oz Michaels Gourmet Delicacies' Wild Alaskan Sockeye
     Salmon Vacuum Packed Batch# 1443 UPC Code 93573 81729

   * 8 oz Michaels Gourmet Delicacies' Wild Alaskan Sockeye
     Salmon Vacuum Packed Batch# 1443 UPC Code 93573 81728

   * 16 oz Michaels Gourmet Delicacies' Wild Alaskan Sockeye
     Salmon Vacuum Packed Batch# 1443 UPC Code 13964 11568

   * 4 oz Trimmings in Plastic Container Wild Alaskan Sockeye
     Salmon Batch# 1443 UPC Code 93573 81729

Michaels Gourmet Delicacies of Miami, Florida, is recalling Wild
Alaskan Sockeye Salmon Batch# 1443, that has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, pregnant women and others with weakened
immune system.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only short
term symptoms as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling by the Florida
Department of Agriculture that revealed that the finished product
contained bacteria.  Michael Gourmet Delicacies has ceased the
sale of the entire Wild Alaskan Sockeye Batch# 1443 until the FDA
and Michaels Gourmet Delicacies continue their investigation as to
what caused the problem.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers should discard or return any of the products purchased
from any Whole Foods Florida Region Stores labeled Michaels
Gourmet Delicacies' Wild Alaskan Sockeye with batch# 1443.

Consumers with questions may contact:

          Michael Seafood Inc.
          Telephone: (305) 770-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 770-9255
          Time: From 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time


NEW FRONTIER: Faces Class Actions Over Proposed LFP Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Wallace, writing for Boulder Daily Camera, reports that the
proposed $33 million purchase of Boulder-based New Frontier Media
Inc. by one of Larry Flynt's firms significantly undervalues the
local media company, some of its shareholders claim.

In the month since LFP Broadcasting announced plans to acquire New
Frontier for $2.02 per share in a cash tender offer, at least four
class action lawsuits have been filed against the Boulder-based
adult entertainment content provider, its board of directors and
its Hollywood-based suitor.

The complaints -- three of which were filed in Boulder District
Court, with the fourth in federal court -- bear similar
allegations:

Shareholders were harmed because of the purchase price.

Board members breached their fiduciary duties by not fully
considering other options and not giving an appropriate valuation
for New Frontier.

Infighting within the firm, which led to the firing of CEO Michael
Weiner and forced the resignation of a director, flawed the sales
process.

The deal contains "onerous" deal protections that financially
hinder New Frontier and limit potential for competing suitors.

The board members did not adequately ensure that no conflict of
interest existed and moved forward on a deal to enrich themselves
and their longtime associates.

"To the detriment of the company's shareholders, the terms of the
merger agreement substantially favor LFP and are calculated to
unreasonably dissuade potential suitors from making competing
offers," attorneys for shareholder Elwood M. White wrote in a
complaint filed Oct. 26 in Boulder County District Court.

The Denver-based Charles Lilley & Associates PC, the firm
representing Mr. White, also filed two other class action
complaints against New Frontier in recent weeks.

Officials for New Frontier declined to comment.

The class action suits follow in what has been a turbulent year
and sales process for New Frontier.

The Boulder company received buyout offers from at least two firms
-- one from New Frontier's largest investor, which spurred a proxy
contest and legal battle.  It then established a special committee
to evaluate strategic alternatives and later fired its CEO and
chairman and requested the resignation one of its independent
directors.

The proposed transaction "appears rife with conflict," wrote
attorneys for shareholder Gopal Chakravarthy in a complaint filed
Nov. 7.  Because the company was not fond of an acquisition by
Longkloof, it hastily entered into another agreement to avoid
Longkloof being able to nominate a board member after Dec. 31,
Mr. Chakravarthy's attorneys alleged.

Other complaints also highlighted the former professional
relationship between New Frontier chairman Alan Isaacman and
Mr. Flynt.  Mr. Isaacman represented Mr. Flynt in the 1988 Supreme
Court case between Hustler Magazine and Jerry Falwell.

"As such, it is unsurprising that Isaacman's ascension to a
leadership position within the company was concurrent with the
sales process sharply favoring Flynt, and ending in a deal with
the Flynt-controlled LFP Broadcasting," wrote attorneys for Craig
Telke in a filing made Nov. 8 in federal court.

The number of federal class action lawsuits related to mergers and
acquisitions has steadily increased in recent years, according to
the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and
Cornerstone Research.

Merger-and-acquisition-related class action cases jumped
significantly in 2010 to 40 federal court filings, according to
research from Stanford and Cornerstone.  Last year, the number of
acquisition-related suits increased to 43.

"The 20 percent increase in underlying M&A activity seems
insufficient to explain fully the almost sixfold increase of M&A-
related filings, an increase that may be largely a result of
changes in plaintiff law firm behavior rather than changes in
underlying market forces," researchers wrote in the 2010 report.

The most common allegations were related to breaches of fiduciary
duties, according to the Stanford and Cornerstone studies.


NRG ENERGY: Unit Defends 5 Suits in N.Y., N.J., Penn. & Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending five class action
lawsuits in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania,
according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, or Energy Plus, is a defendant in five
purported class action lawsuits, one in New York, one in New
Jersey, one in Maryland and two in Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs
in those lawsuits generally allege that Energy Plus misrepresents
that its rates are competitive in the market; fails to disclose
that its rates are substantially higher than those in the market
and that Energy Plus has engaged in deceptive practices in its
marketing of energy services.  Plaintiffs generally seek that
these matters be certified as class actions, with treble damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and any other relief that the
court deems just and proper.  In addition, on July 26, 2012, the
Connecticut Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel filed
a petition with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory
Authority seeking to investigate Energy Plus' marketing practices.
On August 7, 2012, Energy Plus Holdings LLC and Energy Plus
Natural Gas LLC received a subpoena from the State of New York
Office of Attorney General which generally seeks information and
business records related to Energy Plus' sales, marketing and
business practices.  While the Company believes that these
allegations are without merit, the Company is cooperating with the
attorneys general and is exploring an amicable resolution of all
matters.  The Company does not currently anticipate any potential
resolution to be material in nature and believes it is adequately
reserved for any estimated losses.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an integrated wholesale power generation and
retail electricity company.  It is a retail electricity company
engaged in the supply of electricity, energy services, and cleaner
energy products to retail electricity customers in deregulated
markets through its Retail businesses, which include Reliant
Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and Energy Plus Holdings
LLC.  The Company is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.


OCEAN SPRAY: Cranberry Growers File Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chesto, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that
Ocean Spray Cranberries faces a bitter lawsuit in Boston federal
court from growers who claim the Lakeville-based cooperative used
its clout in the cranberry industry to drive down prices of
cranberry juice concentrate and hurt their revenue.

But the growers pursuing the lawsuit, which was filed on Oct. 27,
aren't allowing their names to be used in the case.  They are
instead identified as "John Doe Growers 1-7" and "John Doe B Pool
Grower."  They work in Massachusetts as well as other cranberry-
growing states such as Wisconsin and Oregon.  The lawsuit seeks
class action status for an unspecified number of independent
growers as well as those who participate in Ocean Spray's lower-
paid "B Pool."

Norman Jackman, the Cambridge lawyer representing the growers,
said the growers agreed to participate if they could remain
anonymous but will drop their case if a federal judge requires
their identities to become public.

"They're anxious not to reveal their names because Ocean Spray is
likely to take economic retaliation against them for taking this
action," Mr. Jackman said.  "You have a bunch of people who Ocean
Spray threatened to sue.  . . . If you are threatened (by) a big
lawsuit from a well-known corporation, you have to feel it would
cost you everything you had to defend it.  They're being driven
into very dire financial straits by some of the practices of Ocean
Spray."

Ocean Spray, in a statement, called the lawsuit's claims factually
incorrect and legally flawed.  Ocean Spray vowed to vigorously
defend itself against the lawsuit, and said the decision to sue
anonymously makes the case "an extremely questionable
proposition."

Ocean Spray also said its grower-owners try to drive demand for
cranberries by investments in developing new markets and marketing
programs -- actions that it said should benefit all cranberry
growers, not just those who belong to Ocean Spray's cooperative.

The suit focuses on a claim that Ocean Spray fixed the price of
cranberry juice concentrate at lower prices, with a goal in part
of prompting independent growers to join the Ocean Spray
cooperative.  The suit accuses Ocean Spray of interfering with the
prices growers were receiving by holding periodic auctions of
concentrate.  Ocean Spray, the lawsuit alleges, had an unfair
influence on the outcome of those auctions, forcing the average
price for cranberry juice concentrate down by more than 50 percent
from 2009 to 2010.

Mr. Jackman said Ocean Spray's participation in the concentrate
market, starting in 2009, prompted the price of concentrate to
drop so low, many independent growers couldn't compete
effectively.  "Independent growers . . .  started getting less and
less for their cranberries," he said.  "They weren't making enough
to stay in business."

Processors buying from independent growers couldn't compete with
those buying from Ocean Spray, the suit alleges, unless they were
able to buy cranberries at a low enough cost to make concentrate
that could match Ocean Spray's concentrate prices.  As a result,
some independent growers refused to sell their berries at that
price, the suit alleges, and some were enticed to join the Ocean
Spray cooperative.

The suit claims a number of independent growers who subsequently
joined Ocean Spray ended up in a second-tier group of grower-
members, known as the "B Pool."  The suit claims Ocean Spray set
up a scheme to pay them much less for cranberries than what was
paid to other members, violating federal laws for agricultural
cooperatives.

Ocean Spray, the lawsuit claims, used berries from the B Pool
growers to make cranberry juice concentrate and to continue to
sell concentrate at low prices, forcing some independent growers
to go out of business, according the suit.

"These people we represent are hurting financially," Mr. Jackman
said.  "They felt they had to do something.  Otherwise, these
people were about to file for bankruptcy."


OMNICARE INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit over Omnicare, Inc.'s December 2005 public offering
remains pending, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled
Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension &
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in
December 2005.  The complaint contained claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought,
among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court dismissed the
case.  On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On
October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  However, the appellate court
reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to
the district court for further proceedings.  On July 14, 2011, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended
complaint.  This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare
common stock in the December 2005 public offering.  The new
complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained
false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with
particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal
anti-kickback law in connection with three of Omnicare's
acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers and
its provision of pharmacist consultant services.  On August 19,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' most
recent complaint and on February 13, 2012, the court dismissed the
case and struck the case from the docket.  On March 12, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


OMNICARE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Kentucky,
according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007, through August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of
federal securities law in connection with alleged false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance
with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.
On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint.  Both complaints seek
unspecified money damages.  The Court has appointed lead counsel
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012.  The
Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


PNM RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling in "Begay" Suit Dismissal Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on an appeal from
the dismissal of a class action lawsuit captioned Begay v. PNM et
al., according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
in February 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.
Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation,
who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in
land carved out of the Navajo Nation.  Plaintiffs, including an
allottee association, make broad, general assertions that
defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-
of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or
have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or
both.  The plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust.  They have also
included a breach of trust claim against the United States and its
Secretary of the Interior.  PNM and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss this action.  In March 2010, the court ordered
that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed.  The court
did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding
that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative
remedies before seeking redress in federal court.

In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional
Director.  In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional
Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals.  Briefings on the
merits of the appeal are complete and a decision is pending.  PNM
is participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any
PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal.

PNM says it cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the
range of potential outcomes at this time.

PNM Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pnmresources.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, operates in energy and energy-related
businesses in the United States.  It primarily engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity.  The
Company generates electricity using coal, nuclear, natural gas,
solar, and wind energy.  It also provides regulated transmission
and distribution services.  The Company is headquartered in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Jan. 17 Hearing Set for Nudity Ban Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has been asked to certify a class action against officials
for the city-county of San Francisco who want to ban nudity in
public spaces.

The new ordinance, proposed by supervisor Scott Wiener, would
require clothing on public transit, sidewalks and city streets,
plazas and parklets.

A vote on the ordinance before the full board was scheduled for
Nov. 20.

Mitch Hightower, Oxane "Gypsy" Taub, George Davis and Russell
Mills had sued San Francisco, Wiener and two other supervisors --
David Chiu and Angela Calvillo -- to block the vote.

But the nudists say lawyers for the city assured them that Mr.
Weiner plans to amend the language providing that the operative
date of the ordinance would be Feb. 1, 2013.

They agreed on Nov. 19 to abandon demands for a temporary
restraining order in exchange for delayed implementation of the
ban if it passes.

The nudists claim that the ban would chill their First Amendment
rights to free speech.  The lead plaintiffs boast of using their
naked bodies for political expression.  They moved to certify
their class on Nov. 17.

The first hearing is set for Jan. 17.


SKYPE: Sued in Calif. Over Unauthorized Subscription Renewals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Skype, a division of
Microsoft, converted non-renewing subscriptions to automatically
renewing ones without customers' consent, a class action claims in
Santa Clara County Court.


SLM CORP: Approval of $24.15MM "Arthur" Suit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An objector appealed the approval of SLM Corporation's $24.15
million settlement of the class action lawsuit titled Mark A.
Arthur et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc., according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On February 2, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
a borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington alleging that the Company contacted consumers on their
cellular telephones via autodialer without their consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 et seq. ("TCPA").  On October 7, 2011, the Company
entered into an amended settlement agreement under which the
Company agreed to a settlement fund of $24.15 million.  The court
gave final approval for settlement on September 17, 2012, which
approval is pending resolution of an appeal by an objector to the
settlement on October 17, 2012.

The Company has denied vigorously all claims asserted against it,
but agreed to settle to avoid the burden, expense, risk and
uncertainty of continued litigation.


SLM CORP: Received Final OK of $35MM Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation disclosed in its November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it received in September
2012 final approval of its $35 million settlement of the lawsuit
captioned In Re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation.

On January 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging the
Company and certain officers violated federal securities laws by,
among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's financial
results for year-end 2006 and the first quarter of 2007.  This
case and other actions arising out of the same circumstances and
alleged acts were consolidated.  On March 23, 2012, the parties
agreed to a preliminary settlement pursuant to which the Company
would pay $35 million to be funded by its insurers.  The court
gave final approval for settlement on September 5, 2012.

The Company says it has denied vigorously all claims asserted
against it, but agreed to settle to avoid the burden, expense,
risk and uncertainty of continued litigation.


STANLEY'S MARKET: Recalls 16,100 Lbs. of Kielbasa Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Stanley's Market Brands, LLC, a Toledo, Ohio establishment, is
recalling approximately 16,100 pounds of kielbasa products because
they may contain foreign materials -- less than 5mm-sized pieces
of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 10-lb. bulk cases, each containing 15 links of "STANLEY'S
     MARKET FRESH KIELBASA," bearing the identifying case code of
     "S0011" and any of the following package codes: "30412,"
     "30512," "30612," "31012," "31112," "31312," "31412,"
     "31812," "32012," "32112."

   * 41-oz white freezer paper wrapped packages, each containing
     4 links of "STANLEY'S MARKET FRESH KIELBASA."

   * 21-oz. white freezer paper wrapped packages of "STANLEY'S
     MARKET FRESH KIELBASA," bearing the identifying case code of
     "S0071" and any of the following package codes: "31012" or
     "31112."  The product was produced on November 5, 2012, and
     November 6, 2012.

   * Bulk packages of "STANLEY'S MARKET FRESH KIELBASA."

   * 6.6 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "STANLEY'S MARKET SMOKED
     FRESH KIELBASA," with the identifying case code of "S0013,"
     and any of the following package codes: "31312" or "31012."
     The product was produced on November 5, 2012, and
     November 8, 2012.

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

   http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/075_2012_label.pdf

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "Est.
34598" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
produced on the following dates in 2012, unless otherwise noted
above: Oct. 30, Oct. 31, Nov. 1, Nov. 5, Nov. 6, Nov 8, Nov. 9,
Nov. 13, Nov. 15, and Nov. 16.  It is important to note that the
above listed products were repackaged into consumer-size packages
and may not bear the identifying product information.

The 10-lb bulk cases listed above were distributed at the
wholesale level in Indiana, Michigan and Ohio for further
processing and distribution.

The 41-oz packages were distributed nationwide through internet
sales at the retail level, while the 21-oz packages were
distributed to retail establishments in Toledo, Ohio.

The bulk and 6.6-lb packages were sold through the Company's
retail counter in Toledo, Ohio.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by Stanley's Market Brands.  The
Company initiated the recall after being informed by its supplier
that the marjoram ingredient in the spice mix used in the kielbasa
products was being withdrawn from the market by the supplier for
potentially containing foreign materials.  FSIS and the Company
have received no reports of injury associated with the consumption
of these products.  Anyone concerned about injury 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.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Company's Vice President of Operations Andrew Zychowicz, at
(419) 726-8488.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  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.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Awaits Approval of Consumer Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
consumer class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging
that the design of one the Company's software products and the
method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement,
breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment.  On the same day the same plaintiffs' law firm
filed another action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar
allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the
Company's channel partners who distributes the Company's software
products, and that channel partner has requested indemnification
under contract terms with the Company.  The law firm representing
the plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in
the past year against a number of major software providers with
similar allegations about those providers' products.

On June 18, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement which
remains subject to final court approval.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company would offer a one-time cash payment, which
is covered by the Company's insurance provider, to qualified
class-action members.  In addition, the Company would offer a
limited free subscription to one of its software products.  In
accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company has estimated
and recorded a charge against earnings in general and
administrative expense in the second quarter of 2012 of $57,000
associated with the limited free software subscription.  The
Company denies any wrongdoing or liability and entered into the
settlement to minimize the costs of defense.


UBER: Disputes Hefty Fines Over Ride-Share Services
---------------------------------------------------
Benny Evangelista, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports
that the latest battle pitting disruptive high-tech innovators
against old-school industries and regulators has hit the streets
of San Francisco, where local ride-sharing services find
themselves facing hefty fines and a class-action lawsuit.

Tech firms Uber, SideCar and Zimride say they are ready to go to
the mat to prove current rules governing transportation services
are outmoded, and that what they offer consumers is beneficial to
society.  And their supporters are lining up behind them.

"I absolutely love Uber," said Jean Templin, a San Francisco
resident who used the service to get to the airport on Nov. 16.
"If these services are being used, people must want them.  As a
woman, I have no problem paying more for a safe ride home.  I
would hate to see this service be shut off and have to ride in
unsafe cabs."

Countering that view are state regulators who say the law is the
law, especially because public safety is involved, as well as cab
drivers, who follow all the rules yet still find their livelihoods
threatened.

"I feel like they're taking money out of my pocket after I put in
all these years into this industry," said Edwin Santiago, who has
driven cabs or town cars in the city for 33 years.  "At my age,
it's making things pretty difficult."

                       $20,000 Fines Issued

The state Public Utilities Commission fined each of the companies
$20,000, saying they are operating illegally and in violation of
previously issued "cease-and-desist" orders.  The PUC says the
ride services haven't obtained the proper permits to run their
businesses, which give consumers the power to quickly arrange
rides "on demand" through apps on their smartphones.

Uber, SideCar and Zimride's mobile app service, called Lyft, are
appealing the fines and vow to continue operating.  So does
Tickengo, a Daly City company that is also under a cease-and-
desist order and could, according to a PUC attorney, be next in
line for a fine.

The firms are taking on one of the most heavily regulated of
industries, yet they may have recent history on their side.

One only has to look at how consumer-driven, peer-to-peer file-
sharing technology disrupted the once powerful recording industry,
despite fierce legal battles over copyright laws that were costly
to both sides.  Technology has also disrupted retail shopping, the
postal system, news media, the travel industry, advertising and
governments.

The PUC said more fines could be levied if the companies continue
to defy the order.  But the startups are backed by millions of
dollars in venture capital investments and have armed themselves
with key legal help: Zimride has a former PUC administrative law
judge on its legal team; Tickengo's new attorney is former San
Francisco mayor and state Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

Uber, SideCar and Zimride believe their companies are gaining
support from a new generation of consumers who believe in this new
kind of peer-to-peer ride sharing.

"Technology is going to keep moving forward; the genie is out of
the bottle, and there's no putting it back in," said Sunil Paul,
chief executive officer and founder of San Francisco's SideCar,
which has arranged about 50,000 rides since launching in beta mode
in February.  The company recently launched in test mode in
Seattle.

"This is not just about SideCar," Mr. Paul said.  "It goes beyond
ridesharing and transportation."

                      Permit Forms Outdated

Zimride's Lyft, best known for adorning its cars with huge
mustaches, and SideCar both use apps to match people who need a
ride with drivers who want to make a little extra cash with their
private vehicles.

Each say they are simply using smartphones, location tracking and
the Internet to add a new public transportation option that will
help the environment.

"The frustrating part is that we just want to keep solving the
problem of having 80 percent of those cars' seats empty," said
John Zimmer, co-founder of Zimride, which started in 2007 by
arranging for long-distance rides for college students.


UNION DRILLING: Awaits OK of Deal Settling Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Drilling, Inc. entered into, and is awaiting court approval,
of a settlement of two actions captioned In re Union Drilling,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation related to Sidewinder Drilling Inc.'s
proposed acquisition of all of the Company's outstanding shares of
common stock, Union Drilling disclosed in its November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 24, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sidewinder Drilling
Inc. ("Sidewinder") and Fastball Acquisition Inc. ("Fastball"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Sidewinder, under which Sidewinder will
acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock
for $6.50 per share.  The merger is expected to be consummated
during the fourth quarter of 2012.  On October 5, 2012, a tender
offer was filed with the SEC by Sidewinder, detailing the purchase
of the Company.

Beginning on October 3, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas against
the Company, its board of directors, Sidewinder and Fastball
challenging the proposed transaction.  The two actions, which have
been consolidated under the caption In re Union Drilling, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Cause No. 342-262036-12 (the "Consolidated
Action"), allege that the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of the Company
by approving the proposed transaction and by failing to take steps
to maximize the value of the Company, and that the Company,
Sidewinder, and Fastball aided and abetted such breaches.  The
actions also allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company
on October 5, 2012, omitted certain material information.  On
October 18, 2012, the parties to the Consolidated Action reached
an agreement in principle providing for the settlement of the
action on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of
understanding, dated October 18, 2012 (the "MOU").  Pursuant to
the MOU, the defendants made and publicly filed certain
supplemental disclosures in an amendment to the Schedule 14D-9 in
exchange for dismissal of the Consolidated Action on the merits
and a customary release of defendants.  The proposed settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the proposed
transaction, completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class
certification, and final approval by the Court following notice to
the Company's shareholders.

On October 19, 2012, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, captioned Lewis. v. O'Neill, No: 3:12-
cv-04213-G, against the same defendants who are named in the
Consolidated Action.  The lawsuit filed in federal court contains
similar allegations as set forth in the Consolidated Action, and
asserts individual and class action claims under state law and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On October 24, 2012, the parties
to the federal action filed an agreed motion to stay that action
pending the outcome of the final settlement hearing in the
Consolidated Action.  It is possible that other similar lawsuits
may be filed, and following the consummation of the merger, would
be the successor Company's liability.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Delaware Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their consolidated class
action lawsuit commenced in Delaware against a subsidiary of
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC, according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of
Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP"), filed a putative class action
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the
unitholders of ENP.  Another purported unitholder of ENP, William
Allen, filed a similar action in the same court on April 14, 2011.
The Bushansky and Allen actions have been consolidated under the
caption In re: Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 6347-VCP (the "Delaware State Court Action").  On
December 28, 2011, those plaintiffs jointly filed their second
amended consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants
ENP, Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy
Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and
Vanguard.  That putative class action complaint alleges, among
other things, that defendants breached the partnership agreement
by recommending a transaction that is not fair and reasonable.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages.

Vanguard has filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  On
August 31, 2012, the Chancery Court entered an order granting
Vanguard's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim and dismissing the Delaware State Court Action with
prejudice.  On September 27, 2012, Plaintiffs in that matter filed
a notice of their appeal of the dismissal.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc., is named
as a defendant in numerous pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The
Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate
resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations, either
from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a
whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant
has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused
by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number
of cases have been voluntarily dismissed.

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 30, 2012.

Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies
serving markets globally. The Company's products are used in a
variety of applications, including water, oil and lubricants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Medical Still Monitoring WR Grace Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA was originally formed as a
result of a series of transactions it completed pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated as of February 4, 1996,
by and between W.R. Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE.  At the time of
the Merger, a W.R. Grace & Co. subsidiary known as W.R. Grace &
Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilities
arising out of product-liability related litigation (including
asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims
unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc., which was W.R. Grace &
Co.'s dialysis business prior to the Merger. In connection with
the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to indemnify the
Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of W.R. Grace &
Co., whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations. W.R. Grace & Co. and certain of its subsidiaries filed
for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on
April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against W.R. Grace
and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W.R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of
the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, alleging, among other things that the Merger was a
fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer
act and constituted a conspiracy. All such cases have been stayed
and transferred to or are pending before the U.S. District Court
as part of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy
estate and W.R. Grace & Co. in the matters pending in the Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent
conveyance and tax claims against it and other claims related to
the Company that arise out of the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended, fraudulent
conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of asbestos claimants
will be dismissed with prejudice and the Company will receive
protection against existing and potential future W.R. Grace & Co.
related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and asbestos
claims, and indemnification against income tax claims related to
the non-NMC members of the W.R. Grace & Co. consolidated tax group
upon confirmation of a W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy reorganization
plan that contains such provisions. Under the Settlement
Agreement, the Company will pay a total of $115,000 without
interest to the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate, or as
otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation. No
admission of liability has been or will be made. The Settlement
Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District Court. In January
and February 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court entered orders
confirming the plan of reorganization and the confirmation orders
were affirmed by the U.S. District Court on January 31, 2012.
Multiple parties have appealed to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals and the plan of reorganization will not be implemented
until the appeals are finally resolved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 6-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the month of
October 2012.

Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA is engaged primarily in
providing dialysis services and manufacturing and distributing
products and equipment for the treatment of end-stage renal
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend asbestos-related claims.

The Company states: "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,
we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of
FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment manufactured or sold by businesses classified as
discontinued operations. We intend to continue managing these
cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have
established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued
operations and are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of any
exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve. Our
experience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate
of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential
defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to us
in particular have varied significantly over the last several
years. We are a peripheral defendant -- that is, we have never
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a
result, claim filing rates against us have yet to form a
predictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonably
accurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable to
reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims
that may be filed 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 30, 2012.

FMC Corporation, a diversified chemical company, provides
solutions and products for agricultural, consumer, and industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company.  The Company is a co-
defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts.

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 30, 2012.

Graham Corporation designs, manufactures and sells custom-built
vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers worldwide. The
Company's products include steam jet ejector vacuum systems,
surface condensers for steam turbines, vacuum pumps and
compressors, various types of heat exchangers, including helical
coil heat exchangers marketed under the Heliflow name, and plate
and frame heat exchangers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.05BB Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
$1.05 billion and $1.08 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables
of $502 million and $529 million, as of September 30, 2012 and
December 31, 2011, respectively.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations.  However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims.  The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate.  Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties.  There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements.  Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage.  Management believes
these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and
the ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves.  In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses.  Due to
certain uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

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 30, 2012.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
personal property and casualty insurance, life insurance, and
retirement and investment products business primarily in the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borgwarner Inc. Continues to Defend PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., Borgwarner Inc. (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe
that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general,
these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products
that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated
asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the
manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are
highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both September 30, 2012 and
December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately 16,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims. Of the approximately
16,000 outstanding claims at September 30, 2012, approximately
half were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant
tort and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of
these claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2012, of the approximately 2,200
claims resolved, 233 (11%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2011,
of the approximately 1,800 claims resolved, 288 (16%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.

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

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued $223.5 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The
net balance of $98.7 million, is expected to be fully recovered,
of which approximately $29.0 million is expected to be recovered
within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action or additional
negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2011, insurers owed $109.8
million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $98.7 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $73.6 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at September 30, 2012.
The Company also has a related asset of $73.6 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier
reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the Company's
experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date
in the declaratory judgment action. At December 31, 2011, the
comparable value of the insurance asset and accrued liability was
$61.7 million.

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 30, 2012.

BorgWarner Inc. manufactures and sells engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sleepers Have Fibro From Train Brake Linings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tran of The Monash Weekly reports that fears that wooden
sleepers contaminated with asbestos are being stolen and used as
firewood have emerged following their removal from train tracks
during the upgrade of the Glen Waverley railway line.

Metro Trains has confirmed the theft of an unknown number of
sleepers, and the Firewood Association of Australia said the
sleepers were being used in the place of safer and more expensive
firewood.

The Firewood Association has banned members from selling sleepers
because they are potentially lethal when burned, said association
secretary Alan McGreevy.

Metro Trains spokesman Daniel Hoare said despite security patrols
some sleepers were being stolen.  "Our staff and contractors
patrol the railway line and work with police to try and prevent
any theft of the wooden sleepers, but unfortunately some are
stolen," he said.

Piles of the contaminated wooden sleepers, which belong to the
Department of Transport, have been left next to train tracks along
the Glen Waverley line.

Mr. McGreevy said the Firewood Association began investigating the
issue after getting calls from people who complained of suffering
bronchitis and asthma-type symptoms after burning sleepers.

The organization found that asbestos fibers from train brakes and
brake locks, phased out in 1985, had become trapped on the
sleeper's surface.  "When you burn these in your fireplace, of
course the asbestos isn't going to burn.  It's very fireproof.
It's just going to aggregate in the ash bed," Mr. McGreevy said.

"You might only have half a dozen asbestos fibers there from an
entire season of burning or you might have a heap in one sleeper
and none in all the rest of them.

"But the problem is you now have a perfect environment for getting
the asbestos airborne so you can inhale it because you know what
ash out of a fireplace is like: it's very fluffy and dry.

"You only need a few fibers to create mesothelioma.  You don't
have to inhale a lot of it."

The sleepers have also been contaminated by weed killer, oil and
grease which, when burnt can cause stinging eyes and shortness of
breath.

Despite Department of Health warnings, Mr. Hoare denied the
asbestos link and rejected concerns that the sleepers were a
danger to people's health.  "The sleepers do not contain asbestos.
Testing is conducted on wooden railway sleepers and while there
are low-level traces of hydroflurocarbons from oils and grease
associated with our rolling stock, there is no evidence to suggest
any health risk associated with sleepers."

A community fact sheet issued by the Department of Health,
however, warned against using sleepers as firewood because "they
may also contain asbestos from train brake linings that may be
released when burnt."

Asbestos is a natural mineral that was commonly used until the
1980s to fireproof and insulate homes.

Breathing in asbestos has since been linked to lung cancer and
respiratory diseases like the usually fatal mesothelioma.

There are three types of asbestos: blue, white and brown.  It was
originally mined in Western Australia and New South Wales and used
to fireproof and insulate homes because of its strength and heat
resistance.  It has also been used in vehicle brake materials.

Australia banned the use and import of blue and brown asbestos 30
years ago and white asbestos products since 2003.  But while
asbestos is no longer being used, homes built until the mid-1980s
may still contain asbestos products.  It is often found under
carpets and in paint, weatherboards and plaster.

Although it is not dangerous if left alone, asbestos once
disturbed can create a dust that may be lethal if inhaled.

A report by Safe Work Australia found that, in 2007, 660 cases of
mesothelioma were diagnosed and 551 people died of the disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Defendants' Penalties Reduced
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Janda of The ABC News reports the former James Hardie
directors who were disqualified from managing companies for
releasing misleading information about an asbestos fund have had
their penalties reduced.

In May the High Court upheld an appeal by the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and found the former
directors and executives had misled investors with a press release
that claimed an asbestos compensation fund was "fully funded" to
meet claims against it.

ASIC appealed after the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the
original decision of Supreme Court judge Ian Gzell, who found the
directors and executive had breached their duties.

Justice Gzell originally imposed a five-year ban on all the non-
executive directors and chief financial officer of James Hardie, a
seven-year ban on the company secretary and general counsel Peter
Shafron, and a 15-year ban on former chief executive Peter
Macdonald.

In his original judgment, Justice Gzell was scathing about the
credibility of some of the directors' evidence, particularly that
of Meredith Hellicar.

The appeal court judges have accepted that the initial five-year
ban was appropriate, but they've applied mitigating circumstances,
including the public opprobrium that the directors have suffered,
their exemplary records prior to the contraventions at James
Hardie, their contributions to the community, and their qualified
contrition.

They'll be free to run companies again before the middle of next
year and to serve as directors, take up their careers again --
should they be able to find positions on company boards.

Upon ruling in favor of ASIC's appeal, the High Court remitted the
matter to the Court of Appeal to re-determine penalties for the
former directors.

Ms. Hellicar, a former chairman of the company, has had her
disqualification reduced from five years to two years and three
months, with the NSW Court of Appeal taking into account a period
of one year and four months when she was not legally disqualified
pending the High Court appeal by the regulator.

She will again be eligible to be a company director or manager
from May next year.

Three of the other Australian-based former non-executive directors
of James Hardie during the relevant period -- Michael Brown,
Gregory Terry and Geoffrey O'Brien -- have been given the same
disqualification period.

One other Australian-based former director, Peter Willcox, will be
disqualified until March 31 because he elected not to stay the
effect of the original decision and has thus been disqualified a
month longer so far than his former colleagues.

The Australian-based former directors will pay fines to ASIC of
$25,000 each, down from an original $30,000 penalty.

Two US-based directors -- Martin Koffell and Michael Gillfillan --
have been given a shorter disqualification of about one year and
11 months and will be eligible to manage a corporation at the
start of the new year.

These two directors will pay $20,000 each in fines to the
corporate regulator.

The original seven-year ban and $75,000 fine against Mr. Shafron
was upheld by the Court of Appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Razed Leicester School Displaces 400
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Leicester reports about 400 children from a fire damaged
school in Leicester are set to continue their education at four
different schools starting Nov. 12.

Pupils were evacuated from Catherine Junior School, in Brandon
Street, due to the blaze on Oct. 30.

Damage to buildings and the presence of asbestos has meant its
long-term future is unclear.

A temporary school, to be built on fields at Abbey Community
Primary School, will open in early 2013.

From Nov. 12, 104 pupils in year six will be accommodated at
Rushey Mead Secondary School, with 98 pupils in year five being
accommodated at Soar Valley Secondary School.

A total of 100 pupils in year four will be accommodated at Rushey
Mead Primary School and 94 pupils in year three will go to Taylor
Road Primary School.

More than 40 firefighters tackled the flames at the height of the
fire.  The cause is not yet known.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMU Renovation Goes to Third Student Vote
----------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Emerald reports that the EMU Expansion and Renovation
project will be put to an online student vote through DuckWeb.

In summer 2011, the University of Oregon administration tried to
get around having a student vote, but the state board of higher
education refused to approve the project without student consent.
The first referendum in November 2011 failed.

In the second referendum, held in spring term of 2012, a fee to
fund the Student Recreation Center was approved, but the EMU
renovation again failed to win majority support.  After the RBI
debacle last summer, the school and ASUO aren't taking any
official position on this third vote.

Getting above the politics for a minute, here's what you need to
know about the online vote.

The ASUO says it will cost students $69 every term.  The fee will
pay off the bonds bought by the UO to pay for the renovation, and
the fee will continue until the approximately $100 million in
bonds are paid off.

At the earliest, the renovation will start in fall of 2014 and the
new EMU would open in 2016.  What will construction look like?  No
one's sure, according to the official website:  "The exact plan
for services during the renovation and expansion has yet to be
determined, and won't be until the construction path is outlined.
The goal and priority is to provide all current services at
current or alternative locations as much as possible during
construction."

If the referendum fails, the project is likely on ice for the
foreseeable future.  Given the condition of the EMU -- it's
decrepit -- it's possible the UO could decide to just put in the
funds necessary to repair the building -- repairs and maintenance
that haven' been done in more than a decade.

The UO administration has aggressively pushed the project in the
past -- even hiring a political campaign firm last summer -- and
has been criticized by the state board, student unions, faculty
and local and state media for seeming to try to avoid or
manipulate a student vote on the project.  This time the official
stance is total neutrality.

The plans to renovate have been developing for 10 years.
According to the EMU Task Force, students have been heavily
involved throughout the process so there's a lot of student input
on these plans, but many of those students involved in planning
are no longer at the UO.

Even if the vote is approved, the expansion and renovation must
still be approved by the state board, the Oregon legislature and
by Gov. John Kitzhaber.  The state board thinks the UO
administration has made poor decisions concerning the project.

They'll need some convincing.

Seniors planning to graduate won't have to pay the fee and will be
gone before construction starts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Water Mains Workers Exposed to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Rogalski of KHOU 11 News reports that Houston had a gusher
of a problem last summer.  But it wasn't just the 600 water mains
that broke because of our record drought.

The I-Team discovered some of the workers doing those repairs were
put in harm's way -- exposed to cancer -- causing asbestos while
repairing the broken pipes.

"I'm scared," said Luis Matute.

Matute and others claim no one told them that the water mains they
were sawing through were made of asbestos concrete.

I-Team:  "When you cut the pipe, what happened?"

Matutue:  "Smoke, whoosh, dust, came all the way, like whoosh."

Fellow worker Abraham Rodriguez said the same thing.

"It made everything a white dust cloud," Rodriguez said in
Spanish.

Worse, both men said they didn't have on a respirator mask or
protective clothing at the time.  That's an industry norm when
working around asbestos dust.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen," said Celeste Monforton.  She
spent 11 years working at the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the federal agency that regulates health and
safety issues in the workplace.

Monforton said the real health hazard occurs when asbestos is
aggressively disturbed, such as sawing or hammering.

"You're releasing the (asbestos) fibers into the air," Monforton
said.  "They penetrate into your lung tissue and other tissue in
the body," she said.

The I-Team discovered Houston has more than 1,000 miles of
asbestos concrete pipe underground, in which more than 200
emergency repairs were done last summer.

One contractor the city hired to do the work was Reytec
Construction Resources, Inc., which then hired the subcontractor
that employed workers Matute and Rodriguez.

I-Team: "Did your bosses ever tell you this was asbestos?"

Matute: "Never."

I-Team: "Did they ever tell you to wear protective gear?"

Matute: "No, nothing."

And Rodriguez also told us something similar:

I-Team: "No one ever told you?"

Rodriguez: "Nada."

"That's immoral to do something like that," Monforton said.

"You just can't, I mean that's just unacceptable ... that's a
known carcinogen," she said.

So how could this happen?

We tried to catch up with the City of Houston's public works
director, Daniel Krueger, but he took off down a stairwell.

However in a phone conversation a few days later, Krueger said
even though the city hires them, that it's the contractor's
responsibility to comply with worker safety laws.

We found two problems with his reply.

First, other cities like Dallas have strict and explicit rules for
the contractors they hire to provide respirators, eye protection
and disposal suits.

The other issue lies with Reytec Construction Resources, Inc.
itself.

"They are a serious violator of OSHA regulations" says Laura
Perez-Boston of the non-profit Fe y Justicia Worker Center.

Turns out, Reytec Construction is on OSHA's severe violator list
-- a select group of about 300 companies that the agency says are
the worst when it comes to safety.  Three repeat violations landed
Reytec on that list.

"It's just very disturbing and alarming," said Perez-Boston.  She
claims that the city should never have hired the company in the
first place, and is pushing for the city take a zero-tolerance
approach in the future.

"You know if you're going to be violating the law, you can't
continue to operate in this city," she said.

So we went to Reytec to ask some questions of company Vice-
President Rusty Pena.

I-Team: "In terms of asbestos concrete pipe . . ."

Pena: "Are we on (camera) right now?"

I-Team:  "We are on."

I-Team: "Okay, because I really can't talk to you."

Instead, Reytec sent us a statement disputing the "severe violator
label," saying no injuries or deaths were involved in the
infractions.

As for the issue of the asbestos concrete pipe work, Reytec
claimed it requires the use of respirators and eye protection and
said it even held safety meetings with all of the subcontractors
it hired for the repairs.

But the subcontractor that hired workers Matute and Rodriguez
disputed those claims.

"We never had a meeting on that," said Medisco Imaging owner
Melvin Cobb.

He said he had no idea his men were handling asbestos concrete.

Cobb: "We wasn't (sic) told that that's what it was."

I-Team: "Should you have been told?"

Cobb: "Sure we should have been told."

"It's irresponsible," said worker Abraham Rodriguez in Spanish.

--Irresponsible for leaving them in the dark, and now with worry.

"It will do harm to my physical body," said worker Luis Matute.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Asbestos Cases Added to St. Clair Docket
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that Earl
and Bertha Marshall filed an asbestos lawsuit in St. Clair County
Circuit Court on Oct. 19 against 64 defendant corporations.

The Marshalls will be represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry
Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.

In their complaint, the Marshalls allege the defendant companies
caused Earl Marshall to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

The complaint does not indicate where the Marshalls reside;
however, it states that Earl Marshall worked as a plumber at
Hawthorne Racetrack in Cicero, Illinois, from 1963 until 1977; as
a cook at Peter Pan Restaurant in Chicago, Illinois, from 1977
until 1978; and as a self-employed construction/demolition worker
from 1978 until 1989.

The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of
asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the plaintiff's safety, the suit states.

As a result of his asbestos-related disease, Earl Marshall became
disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great
physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says.  In
addition, he became prevented from pursuing his normal course of
employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would
have accrued to him, he claims.

In his six-count complaint, Earl Marshall is seeking a judgment of
more than $100,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000 and punitive
damages in an amount sufficient to prevent the defendants from
performing similar conduct in the future, plus other relief the
court deems just.

In another complaint filed Oct. 19 in St. Clair County, Gerald
Campbell seeks damages from 54 defendant corporations.

Campbell also will be represented by Gori and Julian.

In his complaint, Campbell alleges the defendant companies caused
him to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-
containing products throughout his career.

The complaint does not indicate where Torres resides; however, it
states that he worked as a laborer at St. Regis Paper Mill from
1956 until 1957 and as a rigger at Monsanto from 1957 until 1993.

The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of
asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the plaintiff's safety, the suit states.

As a result of his asbestos-related disease, Campbell became
disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great
physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says.  In
addition, he became prevented from pursuing his normal course of
employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would
have accrued to him, he claims.

In his five-count complaint, Campbell is seeking a judgment of
more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000, economic
damages of more than $150,000 and punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to prevent the defendants from performing similar
conduct in the future, plus other relief the court deems just.

Campbell-Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-560.

Marshall-St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-561.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vincent Keeps Up Bid to Recover Cleanup Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Peden of The Guardian Express reports that efforts to
recoup hefty clean-up costs accrued from removing airborne
asbestos particles from West Perth properties due to a factory
fire are continuing.

The City of Vincent was forced to engage specialist cleaners and
staff when flames destroyed a vacant Carr Street building in May.

Some areas required multiple clean-ups to rid properties of
contamination.

Following the incident, the Guardian Express reported the City
could pursue legal action in a bid to recover funds spent
responding to the emergency, since tallied at $159,435.

Meeting behind closed doors, Council endorsed action taken by
Mayor Alannah MacTiernan and chief executive John Giorgi,
including the engagement of a senior counsel.

Ms. MacTiernan said of the total fee, $143,825 had been paid to
external contractors and the remainder to City employees.

She said the City had corresponded with lawyers acting on behalf
of the property owners and they had met with the property owner
and their solicitor two weeks ago to progress the matter.

"Asbestos clean-up is an expensive exercise, due to the need to
ensure that the hazard is contained and that exposure to asbestos,
by the community and the removal contractors is negated," she
said.

"The legal basis for recovery is complex and we need to develop a
very strong case if we are to recover this money for ratepayers."

She said the derelict building had been demolished soon after the
fire and the site was now clear.

"The site clean-up has been completed and it has been confirmed
that no asbestos hazard remains.  No further monitoring is
required," she said.

"A development application for a multi-unit development has been
submitted and this is currently being processed."

The cause of the blaze is unknown, but Mr Giorgi told the Guardian
in May that squatters had been spotted running from the warehouse
shortly after the fire had begun.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Environment Boss Moves for Proper Fibro Disposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Bryce Luff of The Fremantle Gazette, properly wrapped
and secured asbestos will be exempt from the landfill levy from
January in a bid to stop illegal dumping of the harmful material.

Environment Minister Bill Marmion announced the plan last
Wednesday, Nov. 7, after reports by Waste Authority WA that the
levy was deterring residents from disposing of the material
correctly.

"The exemption will apply only to asbestos sheeting that is bound
in black plastic for disposal as required under the Health
(Asbestos) Regulations 1992," Mr. Marmion said.

He added that soil contaminated with asbestos-containing materials
would continue to be subject to the levy.  "Because of risks to
human health associated with waste asbestos, reusing or recycling
it is not allowed.

"That means disposal of asbestos waste by burying in landfill is
the only safe and practical option."

Cockburn Mayor Logan Howlett welcomed the decision to offer a safe
and cost-efficient means for locals wanting to dispose of the
material.

"The City welcomes Minister Marmion's announcement as a positive
step for business and the general community (who) has long put
forward the argument that the cost of correctly disposing of
asbestos sheeting was acting as a deterrent.

"The Government has listened and acted for the benefit of the
community and future generations.

"The quicker we remove asbestos from our community the better for
all concerned."

For full information and conditions for acceptance of asbestos at
Henderson Waste Recover Park, Dial 9411 3444.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Majority Holders Divest 5.98M Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hardwood Floors Magazine posts that the two largest shareholders
of stock in Armstrong World Industries (Lancaster, Pa.) are set to
divest shares as part of the company's most recently announced
secondary public offering, according to LancasterOnline.com.

The two companies, Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust and
Armor TPG Holdings LLC, are offering the public 5.98 million
shares.  Recently, in a corporate filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Armstrong said each share would cost $51,
within $4 of its peak price since the company emerged from
bankruptcy in 2006.  Though the sellers would reduce their stakes
in Armstrong to 53% from 63%, they would still retain the titles
of majority holders.

Armstrong filed for bankruptcy in 2000 amid a flood of personal
injury claims resulting from alleged asbestos exposure in its
products.  It emerged from bankruptcy in 2006 as a new corporation
with new stock, funding the asbestos trust by giving it more than
half of that new corporate stock.  Periodically, it sells some of
the stock to generate cash to pay the claims, LancasterOnline.com
wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Pushes for Enforcement of OSHA Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------
WaterWorld.com posts the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
has confirmed that workers in Houston, Texas were exposed to
asbestos while repairing one of the city's water mains in 2011.
The Scientific Analytical Institute (SAI) determined that the pipe
was composed of 35% asbestos (25% chrysotile asbestos and 10%
crocidolite asbestos).  According to the workers, they were not
informed that the pipe contained asbestos nor given personal
protective equipment appropriate for handling asbestos.  The
workers told ADAO that they were instructed to cut the pipe using
a power saw and sledge hammer, which released asbestos into the
environment.

"Cities must ensure that asbestos-cement pipe is handled with
utmost caution."

"It is inexcusable that workers continue to be exposed to
asbestos, a known human carcinogen," said Linda Reinstein, co-
founder of ADAO.  "In order to protect workers' safety and health,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
developed detailed standards for handling asbestos.  Nonetheless,
some contractors continue to knowingly expose their workers to
asbestos without complying with these standards.  ADAO calls on
Congress to require that OSHA's asbestos standards are enforced so
that workers' safety and health are never compromised."

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1980s, cities
throughout the U.S. installed millions of miles of asbestos-cement
pipes.  As these pipes wear over time, they rupture and require
repair.

"Cities must ensure that asbestos-cement pipe is handled with
utmost caution," said Dr. Celeste Monforton, senior research
associate at George Washington University's School of Public
Health and Health Services.  "The serious health harm caused by
asbestos exposure is well-known.  I was appalled to hear how this
known carcinogen was handled in such a frivolous manner in the
City of Houston."

ADAO calls on Congress and the President to prohibit further U.S.
importation of asbestos and protect workers' safety and health by
requiring that U.S. contractors adhere to OSHA's standards for
handling asbestos.

ADAO urges the City of Houston to (1) identify and make public the
location of all water mains containing asbestos-cement pipe; (2)
adopt OSHA's standards of practice for handling asbestos and
ensure that all city-contracted projects comply with them; and (3)
identify and notify all workers engaged in water main repairs of
their potential exposure to asbestos and implement a program to
provide long-term medical screening and care for all of them.

In addition to being exposed to asbestos, the workers did not
receive wages for their repair work for over two months.  ADAO
joins the Fe y Justicia Worker Center in calling on the City of
Houston to pass an ordinance to ensure that the City conducts a
full review of companies' wage and hour records, as well as their
safety and health records, before issuing permits, licenses, or
contracts.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization --
http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/-- was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004.  ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise
public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure.  ADAO is
an independent global organization dedicated to preventing
asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and
community.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joliet Residents Bar Concrete Processing Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Wojdyla Cain for The Herald News reports Boughton Materials
wants to add a concrete crushing and recycling unit to its
limestone quarry in Wheatland Township in Joliet, but neighbors
who live near the site fear a toxic dust will float over their
homes.

They also have concerns about water runoff from stored concrete
contaminating the adjacent DuPage River and increased truck
traffic mixing with teen drivers from Plainfield East High School.

Company Vice President Frank Maly said concrete recycling will be
a miniscule part of the business, which is located at 22750 W.
Hassert Blvd.  The company will take precautions to prevent
environmental issues for nearby residential areas and truck
traffic would only increase by five to 10 trucks a day, he added.

Residents of nearby subdivisions, which have grown through the
years, disagreed.  They objected to Boughton Materials' request
for a zoning change from agricultural to industrial and special
use permit for the concrete recycling facility during Tuesday's
(Nov. 13) Will County Board Land Use Committee meeting.  Because
the quarry is unincorporated, the county board decides the site's
zoning issues.

At the end of a lengthy discussion on the project, committee
members agreed to give both sides more time to reach a compromise.

"It doesn't sound like you have a lot of support here," committee
Chairman Tom Weigel, R-New Lenox, said to Maly.

The county's planning and zoning commission voted against the
zoning requests, but the commission's vote is advisory.

Boughton Materials attorney Scott Pointer said the company is open
to a set of conditions that would mitigate residents' concerns
including a requirement to take only non-demolition concrete that
would, in theory, contain fewer contaminants.

"We don't want the neighbors to feel we're trying to ram this down
their throats," he said.

The biggest bone of contention centers on the amount of asbestos
that might be in concrete sent to the proposed recycling site.

Dean Olson, the county's Waste Services director, and Maly both
said the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency had no concerns
about asbestos in concrete.

But project opponent Eugene Geekie, Jr., who lives near the site,
said the IEPA had "dropped the ball" on the issue.  Committee
members Brian Smith, R-Plainfield, and Debbie Rozak, R-Wilmington,
agreed.

"Well, if they don't test for it, how do they know it's not an
issue," Rozak said.  "That doesn't make sense to me."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD Specialist Joins Libby's CARD Staff
--------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Inter Lake reports Dr. Alisa Koval has joined the staff
at the Center for Asbestos Related Disease in Libby.

The clinic has had a burgeoning caseload in recent years due to
widespread asbestos disease linked to exposure from the former
W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine at Libby.  Nearly 3,000 patients
with varying levels of asbestos disease use the clinic for health-
care services.

Koval will provide asbestos-related health screenings and chronic
asbestos disease management for patients one week each month.  She
also is an active participant in the Libby Epidemiological
Research Program.

Her research interests include the characterization of pulmonary
and autoimmune disease presentation associated with Libby
amphibole asbestos.

She is based at National Jewish Health in Denver, where she works
in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences.  Koval is a recent graduate of the Occupational and
Environmental Medicine Residency program at the Mount Sinai School
of Medicine in New York City, where she worked closely with Dr.
Stephen Levin.

She has been focusing on Libby amphibole asbestos for the past 2
1/2 years.

"Her commitment to the people of Libby and her knowledge of Libby
amphibole asbestos will be a great asset to CARD patients," said
Dr. Brad Black, medical director of the clinic.

Over the past few years, the clinic has emerged as a national
center of excellence in addressing health-care issues associated
with Libby asbestos exposure, Black added.

Koval began her education at the University of Michigan, earning a
Bachelor of Science degree in biology with honors, followed by a
Master of Health Service Administration degree.

After spending a year as an administrative fellow at The
Children's Hospital of Denver, she went on to earn her medical
degree from the Georgetown University School of Medicine.  Prior
to beginning her residency training, she worked as an internal
consultant at New York-Presbyterian Hospital in its Six Sigma
program.  She stayed on to complete her training in general
preventive medicine and public health, and received the
Distinguished Housestaff Award in 2009.  Koval completed her
Master of Public Health degree from Columbia University.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wagin School's Hardie Products Blamed for Meso
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Hiatt of The West Australian reports a man who has the
deadly asbestos-related disease mesothelioma fears he may have
contracted it when he was a student at a school in Wagin more than
30 years ago.

Diagnosed in July last year, Ballidu resident John McDonald, 49,
is appealing for information from anyone who was a student or
teacher at Wagin junior high school in the 1970s, when he believes
the school used asbestos in an extension.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Tricia Wong said Mr. McDonald was
considering seeking compensation from building products
manufacturer James Hardie and from the Education Department.

It was a race against time and he would need help from others who
were at the same school to be able to mount a case for
compensation.

She said there were public records that showed James Hardie
building products were used in construction projects at the Wagin
school in the 1970s.

Ms. Wong said an added concern was that other students and
teachers may also have been exposed at the school.

Mr. McDonald, who spent more than 20 years working as a chef and
nearly a decade as a farm worker, cannot recall any other asbestos
exposure in his employment history.

"When someone tells you that you have months to live it's quite
hard to believe," he said.

"I was quite numb when I was first confronted and then I found out
there's no cure.  That was quite devastating."

Ms. Wong said lawyers were seeing more people with asbestos-
related diseases who were initially unsure where they had been
exposed to the deadly dust.

An Education Department spokeswoman said it settled a claim last
year for a teacher generally exposed to asbestos in Wittenoom in
the 1940s, but it did not have any other active claims.

She said there may have been historic claims relating to
industrial disease before RiskCover was established in 1997 but no
central record had been kept of those claims.

All asbestos roofs in WA public schools were replaced by 2001.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingston Foreshore's Fibro Find Contained
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that air monitoring is underway around the
Kingston Foreshore in Canberra's inner-south after the discovering
of more dumped asbestos.

Landscape gardeners uncovered pieces of bonded asbestos on part of
the island at the foreshore development on Tuesday, Nov. 13.

Work was halted while the sheets were removed.  The material were
scheduled be taken to a landfill site on Nov. 14.

Land Development Agency chief executive David Dawes says the risk
of exposure to asbestos dust is very low.

"What we did do is immediately stop work, call the Environment
Protection Authority and WorkSafe, and we then implemented our
environmental plan," he said.

"There's no danger to workers or to the general public.

"What we have also done as well, just to ensure safety we've
actually put air monitors there and we have implemented dust
suppression to be on the safe side."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskatchewan to Publish Contaminated Bldgs List
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Saskatchewan reports that despite some earlier
misgivings, the Saskatchewan government has decided to publish a
list of buildings containing asbestos.

It's something the New Democrat Opposition was pushing for, as was
Saskatoon's Howard Willems, who died recently of lung cancer.

The registry will list the government buildings which are known to
contain asbestos.

When the NDP raised the issue in the legislature earlier this
month, Labour Relations Minister Don Morgan said the government
was worried such a registry might give people a false sense of
security.

In other words, if a building was not on the list, people might
not take proper precautions.

"I think what we would like to do . . . is take every step we can
to have a greater amount of public knowledge," said Morgan, "and
ensure that contractors or people who are working in the areas
where asbestos is located know about it and know the steps that
they need to take."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naturally Occurring Fibro Shuts Motocross Track
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ward of The MacQuarie Port News reports Port Macquarie-
Hastings Council has shut down the Hastings Valley Motocross
Track.

Naturally occurring asbestos has been found present in the
vicinity in serpentine rock.

The Hastings Motorcycle Club's 250 members, 130 riders and
committee are all eagerly awaiting results from tests so they can
again have access to their track.

President of the organization Stewart Steel although frustrated
with the latest closure is working closely with council to get a
result.

"Whilst the naturally occurring asbestos issue is yet another set-
back in what has been a frustrating year for all our members,
council is working toward a management plan that sees us back
racing at the start of next year's season," he said.

"We have been tested for everything but measles and chickenpox,
and look forward to a clean bill of health for our complex so we
can all get back to our racing."

Recent soil testing confirmed the presence of the substance was
naturally occuring rather than the material being introduced into
the site.  An excerpt from the report conducted by JBS Environment
on behalf of NSW EPA and NSW Roads and Maritime Services
recommended initial steps to combat the situation but also advised
of the closure of the grounds until further testing is complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Landfill Dumped at Glendowie Park
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Orsman of The New Zealand Herald reports tests are being
carried out on asbestos-containing material found in truck loads
of soil dumped at Glendowie Park right opposite Glendowie Primary
School.

The Auckland Council has fenced off a large section of Glendowie
Park and school principal Anne-Marie Biggs has stopped the 650
pupils from playing sport on the park until it is declared safe.

The fenced off area is just 30m from the front gate of the primary
school.  Sacking and plastic sheeting has been placed over areas
where the soil was dumped.

After being alerted by a parent on Monday, Nov. 12 about the
possibility of asbestos at the park and receiving confirmation of
asbestos-containing material on Nov. 13, Ms. Biggs sent children
home with a letter to parents, which included an assurance that
recent sports activities at the park were not in the affected
area.

The school principal said she had been told the asbestos-
containing material was in a solid form, not crumbling or a dust-
forming state, and the danger was "minimalistic."

About 80cu m of topsoil was trucked to the park on Oct. 24 and
Oct. 25 from a private property and leveled for landscaping
purposes on Oct. 25.

Local and sports parks manager Mark Bowater refused to say where
the soil came from, except that it came from a private property
and the agreement with the landowner was for clean fill.  No other
soil from the property had been used on council or other sites, he
said.

Mr. Bowater said the asbestos material in the fill was believed to
be low-risk because it was in a solid form.

Even so, he said, all of the fill was being removed to an approved
landfill and the council was testing it in conjunction with the
Auckland Regional Public Health Service.

Emma Griffiths, whose 5-year-old daughter attends the school, said
it was unbelievable that the council would not check and test the
soil before using it on the park.

She said her uncle was being buried in the United Kingdom after
dying within a year of being diagnosed with an asbestos-related
disease at the age of 53.

The council, she said, should be penalized and make a donation to
the school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Found at Queensland Children's Park
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Adcock of ABC News reports that a children's playground
remains closed near a popular beach at Bundaberg, in southern
Queensland, after asbestos was found there last month.

A member of the public discovered exposed asbestos fibers at the
Neilsen Park playground at Bargara Beach last month.

Councillor Greg Barnes says the area was roped off immediately.

He says a thorough investigation found more than 30 exposed
asbestos fragments, most likely from an old dismantled kiosk.

"Since then we've removed in some areas up to 300 millimeters of
topsoil to make sure that there's nothing underlying," he said.

Cr Barnes says once the new turf is laid the park will reopen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S&P Assigns 'BB-' to Sealed Air's Proposed Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that on Nov. 14, 2012, Standard & Poor's Ratings
Services assigned its 'BB-' issue rating and '4' recovery rating
to Sealed Air's proposed $850 million notes to be issued in two
tranches with eight- and 10-year maturities.  The company will use
proceeds from the notes issuance, along with cash in hand, to
refinance its outstanding 5.625% senior notes due 2013 and 7.875%
senior notes due 2017.

S&P also assigned a 'BB' issue rating and a '2' recovery rating to
Sealed Air's proposed $800 million senior secured term loan B due
2018.  In addition, S&P assigned a 'BB' issue rating and a '2'
recovery rating to the company's proposed $80 million Japanese
term loan A due 2016.  Sealed Air Japan Holdings G.K. and Sealed
Air Japan Ltd. are borrowers under the Japanese yen-denominated
term loan A.  Likewise, Sealed Air Corp. and Cryovac Inc. are
borrowers under the U.S. dollar-denominated tranche of the term
loan B. Sealed Air B.V., Sealed Air Netherlands Holdings BV, and
Diversey Europe BV Netherlands are borrowers under the Euro
denominated tranche of the term loan B.  The company will use term
loan proceeds along with $300 million in estimated net proceeds
from the sale of the Diversey operations in Japan to refinance $1
billion in existing term loan B and the existing $121 million
Japanese term loan A.

S&P also affirmed all existing ratings on the company, including
the 'BB-' corporate credit rating.  The recovery rating on the
secured debt remains unchanged at '2', indicating the expectation
of substantial (70%-90%) recovery of principal and interest in the
event of payment default.  The recovery rating on the unsecured
debt remains '4', indicating the expectation of an average (30%-
50%) recovery in the event of payment default.

Rationale

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services' ratings on Sealed Air Corp.
reflect the company's strong business risk profile and aggressive
financial risk profile, including the increased debt leverage
resulting from its $4.7 billion acquisition of Diversey Holdings
Inc. in October 2011.  With sales of about $7.7 billion for the 12
months ended Sept. 30, 2012(excluding the recently sold Diversey
Japan business), Sealed Air is a leading global manufacturer of
various packaging and performance-based materials and equipment
systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and
consumer applications.  Its acquired operations include cleaning
and hygiene products, and related services for institutional and
industrial cleaning.  Sealed Air generates more than 60% of its
revenue outside of North America and 23% from developing markets.

Although the Diversey acquisition has extended Sealed Air's
offerings to food-related end markets, a significant portion of
combined sales is from nonfood applications.  Besides the economy,
changes in meat consumption patterns, such as those related to the
cost of meat, reported outbreaks of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (mad cow disease) or avian influenza, and trade
restrictions can affect the food packaging business.  Sealed Air's
sales to its relatively stable food and beverage customers make up
about 49% of total sales.  The company derives about 28% of sales
from cleaning and sanitation product sales, mainly to building
management/service contractors and to retail, lodging, and health-
care end markets.  Protective packaging represents about 21% of
sales.  This category is somewhat cyclical because most of its
sales depend on manufacturing sector volumes.  Operations should
benefit from attractive long-term demand growth trends, such as
increased emphasis on food safety and security, health and
hygiene, and growing protein consumption worldwide.  However,
curtailed capital spending levels, in part, to maximize free cash
flow for debt reduction, could potentially hamper long-term growth
prospects.

Near-term challenges include the weak economic outlook in Europe,
competitive pressures to Diversey's business, and declining beef
consumption trends in the U.S. and Europe (which could be further
affected in the U.S. by drought conditions that could result in
higher retail meat prices).  As a result, S&P's ratings on Sealed
Air factor in its expectation that the company's adjusted EBITDA
will be about $1 billion in 2012, and S&P expects the company's
EBITDA will improve only modestly in 2013 on the back of cost
synergies achieved.  S&P believes any improvement in the European
operations (about 33% of sales) remains uncertain due to very low
GDP growth that S&P currently expects in this region under its
base-case scenario.

In the third quarter of 2012, Sealed Air recorded an estimated
non-cash, pretax charge of $1.3 billion for impairment of goodwill
and certain intangible assets related to the Diversey segment.
Given the addition of Diversey's lower margin business, and
sluggish sales volumes, Sealed Air's adjusted EBITDA margins
deteriorated to 13% in 2012 from 16%-17% historically.  However,
somewhat offsetting the weaker earnings trend, the company is
implementing its integration and optimization plan with expected
cost synergies of about $195 million to $200 million by 2014.  It
plans to achieve this mainly through headcount reduction,
procurement savings, and facility consolidations.  The company
expects restructuring costs of about $235 million to achieve these
synergies.

Sealed Air's debt leverage increased significantly following the
Diversey acquisition.  As of Sept. 30, 2012, its funds from
operations (FFO)-to-adjusted debt was below 10%, pro forma for the
company's asbestos-related settlement payment and assuming it uses
all but $100 million of cash on hand to fund the settlement.  S&P
believes that management will apply discretionary cash flow to
debt reduction to gradually improve its financial profile.  The
company will use expected net after-tax proceeds of $300 million
from the sale of the Diversey operations in Japan to prepay a
portion of the term loans outstanding under its senior secured
credit facilities.  S&P considers FFO-to-total adjusted debt of
12% to 15% as appropriate for the rating.  Given the need for
improvement in the company's financial profile, the ratings would
not support additional acquisitions or share repurchases until
credit measures strengthen to appropriate levels.

In November 2003, Sealed Air signed a definitive settlement
agreement with the Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
and the Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants in the
bankruptcy proceedings for chemical company W.R. Grace & Co.
(Sealed Air purchased the Cryovac packaging business from Grace in
1998.) Under the agreement terms, Sealed Air is to pay the
settlement in full when W.R. Grace & Co. emerges from bankruptcy
on the reorganization plan's effective date.  The payments include
$512.5 million in cash, with interest accruing at 5.5% annually
since December 2002, and 18 million shares of Sealed Air common
stock.  The reorganization plan includes establishing one or more
trusts under Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The settlement
will provide protection to Sealed Air against all current and
future Grace-related asbestos, fraudulent transfer, and successor
liability claims made against it in connection with the Cryovac
acquisition.  In January 2012, the U.S. District Court of Delaware
confirmed Grace's reorganization plan.  However, the District
Court rulings remain subject to further appeals, which need to be
resolved in order for Grace to emerge in 2013 or later.

Liquidity

S&P considers Sealed Air's liquidity to be "adequate."  As of
Sept. 30, 2012, Sealed Air had about $541 million in cash, and
almost full availability under its $700 million revolving credit
facility expiring in 2016.  The company also has a $125 million
U.S. accounts receivables securitization program maturing in
September 2013, $118 million of which was available at Sept. 30,
2012.

S&P expects free cash generation of about $375 million in 2012,
after reduced capital spending of $130 million.  In addition to
prioritizing discretionary cash flows (after annual dividend
outlays of around $100 million) for debt reduction, S&P also
expects management to maintain significant liquidity in
anticipation of the asbestos-related settlement agreement payment
(about $866 million including accrued interest as of Sept. 30,
2012), which Sealed Air will make when Grace emerges from
bankruptcy.

S&P's assessment of Sealed Air's liquidity as adequate
incorporates the following:

-- S&P expects sources of cash to exceed cash usage by 1.2x or
more, during the next 12 to 18 months;

-- S&P expects sources to remain positive even in the unlikely
event of a 20% EBITDA decline;

-- The credit agreement governing the senior secured credit
facilities includes a maximum net debt leverage ratio, and the
covenant is being amended to provide additional cushion with
respect to compliance; and

-- Pro forma for the refinancing, the debt maturity profile seems
manageable and mainly includes scheduled term loan A and term loan
B amortization during the next few years.

Recovery analysis for the complete recovery analysis, see the
recovery report on Sealed Air, to be published later on
RatingsDirect.

Outlook

The outlook is stable.  During the next few years, S&P expects
Sealed Air to use discretionary cash flow primarily for debt
reduction until credit measures strengthen to appropriate levels.
S&P believes Sealed Air should be adequately positioned to make
the asbestos-related settlement payment if Grace exits bankruptcy
in 2013 or later.  Given the uncertainties related to timing and
resolution of the asbestos settlement payment, S&P has not
factored in a potential tax refund (the amount and timing of which
are uncertain and subject to IRS review) and resultant debt
reduction in its scenario.

S&P could lower the ratings if earnings deteriorate materially
from current levels--owing to a deeper recession in Europe--
causing adjusted leverage to remain at or above 5x on a sustained
basis and FFO-to-total debt to remain below 10% without prospects
for recovery.  This could occur if revenues declined by 5% or
more, and operating margins declined by 100 basis points or more
from current levels.

The potential upside to the rating is limited in the next 12
months.  S&P could raise the rating thereafter if Sealed Air
further improves its sales growth and profitability, and boosts
its credit measures and financial flexibility.  S&P could raise
the ratings if credit measures strengthen more than expected, with
Sealed Air achieving and maintaining FFO-to-total adjusted debt in
the 15% to 20% after paying the asbestos-related settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NDP Admits Registry List May Not be Comprehensive
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Mills of CJME reports Saskatchewan residents will now know
what public buildings in the province have asbestos, but the list
might not be complete.

The legislative building and courthouses are some examples of
buildings that will appear on a list the government of
Saskatchewan will make public online.  But the government has left
it up to school divisions, health regions and others to decide
whether to be a part of the registry.

The NDP is supportive of the move, but maintains it doesn't go far
enough.  It was their party that introduced the Asbestos Right to
Know Act in the legislature.

NDP MLA Cam Broten argues the registry as the government has
designed it won't be comprehensive.

"(That) falls short of meeting the goal and the desire of Howard
Willems and the many advocates who want to reduce the number of
asbestos-related diseases in our society," said Broten.

Willems worked as a building inspector for 31 years and had
mesothelioma, a very rare form of cancer that comes from inhaling
asbestos fibers.  He supported the bill the NDP introduced.

Willems argued that people should know if they're going into
buildings that have asbestos -- especially if construction is
being done because it stirs up hazardous fibers.

"Look at the impact it will have on future generations," he said.

Willems died on Nov. 8.

Inhaling asbestos fibers can lead to often fatal lung diseases.
It was no longer used in buildings by the 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ETU Stays Work Restrictions on Meter Boards
------------------------------------------------------------
Denice Barnes of The Express Advocate Gosford Edition reports
eight electricity substations on the Central Coast have been
identified as having asbestos present and being in a "poor" state
with major surface damage.

These include Wyong, Vales Point, Charmhaven, Umina Beach, Peats
Ridge, Noraville, Lisarow and Avoca Beach.

Other Central Coast substations have asbestos but it remains
bonded and is not considered dangerous.

Documents obtained by the Electrical Trades Union revealed 49
documented cases of asbestos-related illness at energy distributor
Ausgrid over 22 years.

Union secretary Steve Butler said even more alarming was another
set of documents that showed despite the presence of dangerous
"friable" asbestos at multiple substations where employees could
be exposed, removal programs had been suspended because the
company was reluctant to pay overtime.

"At least two people are developing either mesothelioma or
asbestosis at Ausgrid each year and the number is likely to rise,"
he said.

"If power workers died from electrocution at a company each year,
it would shut down.  If the government won't take immediate
action, we will have no choice but to ban work in these
substations."

Electrical Trades Union secretary Steve Butler said while
government recognition for an audit was pleasing it was just the
first step and full removal was the solution.

"I was able to provide the minister with details about our union's
concerns and the need for an audit and I am happy to see it will
go ahead," Mr. Butler said.

"While the audit is a step in the right direction the union will
continue to work towards full asbestos removal."

A meeting on the asbestos issue was held on Friday, Nov. 9,
between union officials, State Energy Minister Chris Hartcher and
senior management from electricity companies.

The result was an announcement of an industry-wide asbestos audit
to be conducted by WorkCover NSW.

The audit will cover distribution companies Endeavour Energy,
Ausgrid and Essential Energy as well as TransGrid and the state's
power generators, Delta Electricity, Macquarie Generation and
Eraring Energy.

Electrical Trades Union secretary Steve Butler said despite the
audit announcement, work restrictions on meter boards would remain
in place.

"The advice issued by Endeavour Energy informing workers that
there was no need to wear full personal protective equipment when
working on pre-1988 boards is wrong," Mr. Butler said.

"We know for a fact that these meter boards contain asbestos
material and we know for a fact that when this material is
disturbed through normal work procedures such as drilling, cutting
or grinding and can be lethal if inhaled."

He said The restrictions would remain until acceptable work
procedures were developed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso-Lawyer Says Job Includes Lot of Forensics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Alexander of The Sydney Morning Herald relates Theodora
Ahilas wakes in the night with clues from her clients' lives
rattling around in her head.

She knows that at some point in the past 50 years they have had
contact with asbestos.  Now they are dying and the race is on to
work out when they were exposed so they can see their family
compensated within their lifetimes.

Ms. Ahilas, an asbestos solicitor at Maurice Blackburn, has
handled close to 1000 cases involving mesothelioma victims.

Now, in the same month that seven James Hardie directors have had
their penalties slashed, she has won the Law and Justice
Foundation's Justice Medal, which recognizes her commitment to
their victims.

The courtrooms where she appears are fashioned from bedrooms and
hospital wards.  Often hers is one of the last faces her clients
see.

"I've seen people give their last breath getting compensation for
their families," Ms. Ahilas said.

"It's awful but it's still amazing that the human spirit is still
prepared to fight at that point.  That's why I love the work."

But the business of obtaining compensation for asbestos victims
has changed over her 20-year career.

The first wave were the mining and factory workers who had direct
exposure with asbestos and often battled its manufacturers, who
claimed they were not aware of its affects until 1960.  The second
wave were the builders and plumbers who worked with fibro
products.

Now the third wave is coming through -- the women who washed the
overalls of those workers, the bystanders and the home renovators.

Invariably they have no idea when they were exposed.

"I say to people when they come to me, 'Think if it as a big
jigsaw puzzle'," Ms. Ahilas said.

She has one client in his 30s, who played among fibro offcuts as a
toddler when his parents were renovating their house.

The mountaineer Lincoln Hall was exposed when his father built him
a cubby house in 1969.

For another client, the mystery was solved when she found an
ancient receipt from a hardware store, which specified a James
Hardie product.

"It's a forensic exercise.  You're looking at something that
happened 30 or 40 years ago.  You look for records to see what
products they might have used.  It's a lot of talking to witnesses
and going back and finding people."

The third wave of victims demonstrates how indiscriminate
mesothelioma can be.

"It could happen to anyone.  There were several middle management
[people] at James Hardie who developed mesothelioma, and that
would be from walking through the factory."

But if they ever sought compensation, they never called Theodora
Ahilas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Notorious Health Violator Holds Record for Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kovner of The Hartford Courant reports Cherry Hill
Construction Co. of North Branford has received the largest
reported fine for asbestos violations in the state so far this
year -- a $27,500 penalty in July for a series of health
violations at a Brookfield demolition site last year, according to
a report of health-related actions released Thursday, Nov. 15.

The report lists disciplinary actions by the Department of Public
Health in a variety of regulated occupations, including
hairdressers and embalmers, doctors and daycare centers, massage
therapists and psychologists, nurses and marriage counselors.

The latest quarterly report covers July to September.

In the environmental-health field, Cherry Hill was fined for a
series of safety violations during the demolition of a shopping
plaza on Federal Road in Brookfield in April and May of 2011.  The
company, which has a history of violations, agreed to the fine in
a consent order signed in July.

Last year, Cherry Hill was fined $20,000 for safety violations
discovered during the razing of an apartment house on Newhall
Street in Hamden in October 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Co, 72 Others Face Asbestos Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports a Hansford woman
is suing 73 companies she claims are responsible for her late
husband's lung cancer and death.

Lorenzo Dow Massey was diagnosed with lung cancer, from which he
died on Sept. 12, 2011, according to a complaint filed Nov. 2 in
Kanawha Circuit Court.

Betty Jo Massey claims Lorenzo Massey was exposed to asbestos
during his employment as a laborer from 1951 until 1979.

Lorenzo Massey smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from 1955
until 1975, but then quit, according to the suit.

Betty Massey is suing the defendants based upon the theories of
negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied
warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy,
misrepresentations and post-sale duty to warn.

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

Betty Massey is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues.  She
is being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart --
brinehart@jfhumphreys.com

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 73 companies named as defendants in the suit are 3M Company;
A.W. Chesterton Company; CBS Corporation; Aurora Pump Company;
Brand Insulations, Inc.; Bucyrus International, Inc.; BW/IP, Inc.;
Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbus
McKinnon Corporation; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; Crane Company; Crown,
Cork & Seal USA, Inc.; DeZurik, Inc.; Dow Chemical Company; Dravo
Corporation; Durabla Manufacturing Company; Eaton Corporation;
Elliott Turbo Machinery Company, Inc.; FMC Corporation; Flowserve
Corporation f/k/a the Duriron Company, Inc.; Flowserve
Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Durametallic Corporation;
Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; Foote Mineral
Company; General Electric Company, Inc.; General Refractories
Company; Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc.; Georgia Pacific; Goulds Pumps,
Inc.; Grinnell Corporation; Hercules, Inc.; Honeywell
International f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc. f/k/a Allied Corporation
successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation; Honeywell
International, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings
Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT
Corporation; J.H. France Refractories; John Crane, Inc.; Joy
Technologies, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corporation; McJunkin
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Mueller Steam
Specialty; Nagle Pumps; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.;
Oakfabco, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Ohio Valley Insulating
Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Peerless Pumps; Pneumo Abex
Corporation; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American
Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Rust
Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Schneider Electric; State
Electric Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA); Tasco
Insulations, Inc.; Thiem Corp.; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Union
Carbide Chemical & Plastics Company; Uniroyal, Inc.; United
Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International;
Vimasco Corporation; Weil-McLain Company; West Virginia Electric
Supply Company; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries, Inc.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-2212.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup Shuts Madison Library for 2 Weeks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Eagle reports the Madison Public Library at 39 Keep
St. will be out of action for about two weeks due to an asbestos
abatement project scheduled to begin Monday, Nov. 26.

The library will close at 5 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 25, and will remain
closed through the abatement work period, estimated at about two
weeks.

All library programs, including "Wednesday Night at the Movies"
and story times scheduled during that time frame are cancelled for
the duration of the project.

Madison Public Library cardholders are encouraged to use the
reciprocal borrowing arrangements offered by all public libraries
in Morris County, as well as the libraries in Summit, New
Providence, Berkeley Heights, Bernards Township, Bernardsville and
Long Hill Township.

Prior to the project, the Madison library also will be closed in
observance of the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, Nov. 22.  The
library will close at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 21, and will reopen
Friday, Nov. 23.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work on Breton School Fibro Issue Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cape Breton Post reports that repairs to small tears in a
protective cover over asbestos material at Breton Education Centre
continued overnight Wednesday, Nov. 14.

"This is not something in my view that people should be alarmed
about," said Paul Oldford, director of operations for the Cape
Breton-Victoria Regional School Board.

"This is just something we are going about taking care of
carefully."

The damage to the protective covering of ventilation equipment was
discovered during routine maintenance.  The system has been shut
down pending completion of the work.

Oldford said a contractor specializing in asbestos worked on the
problem Tuesday (Nov. 13) night and returned to continue the work
Wednesday (Nov. 14) evening.

He didn't know when the work would be completed.

"Typically we don't do work in the daytime when kids are in
school," he said.  "There is no reason other than it is disruptive
to the school."

Oldford said the asbestos material was not disturbed and asbestos
is only harmful if it is airborne.

"This is remedial work, we are taking the steps to prevent that
from happening," adding that it is not unusual to find asbestos in
an older building.

"It was a common building product up until probably the early
1980s," he said.  "This is something we do fairly regularly in our
buildings, the process is always the same."

BEC principal Bruce MacDonald said the affected area is in the
basement and there are no classrooms in the area.  Staff was
informed and an advisory sent home to parents.  "We received a few
dozen calls from concerned parents looking for more information."

However MacDonald said the majority of students attended school
Wednesday.

He said the school board has been diligent in addressing the issue
quickly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mendocino Air Quality Board, GSA Mend Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Revelle of The Ukiah Daily Journal reports that the
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District and the county's
General Services Agency signed an agreement that nearly eliminates
a $123,000 fine for alleged asbestos violations during a
remodeling project.

The district notified the county of the alleged violations Dec. 30
and levied the six-figure fine in January for allegedly failing to
test for asbestos and to notify the district before renovating the
reception area and front counter of its former Mental Health
building at 860 N. Bush St., where Environmental Health is now
housed.

The settlement, signed Aug. 24 by Air Pollution Control Officer
Chris Brown and on Aug. 30 by GSA Director Kristin McMenomy, says
the fine was reduced to $25,000 and will be suspended for two
years.

"If there are no further violations relating to remodeling of
county owned or leased properties after two years from the
effective date . . . of this agreement the . . . monetary penalty
will be withdrawn," the agreement states.

The agreement also includes provisions that the county will
reimburse the district for $8,957.90 of legal costs within 90 days
of the execution date, and that the county will send two GSA
employees to a 24-hour asbestos course within a year of the
agreement, and to a 16-hour environmental or Occupational Safety
and Health Administration compliance training class of their
choice within a year.

The county will also "ensure that all air sampling for asbestos is
done by CAC (California Asbestos Consultants)" under the
agreement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Scheduled for Abatement Catches Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
WISHTV.com (Indianopolis) reports that a home in the 1600 block of
Carrollton Ave. caught fire on the same day asbestos were
scheduled to be removed from the home.

Residents told IFD they smelled something burning from a closet in
the home Friday morning (Nov. 16).  The family quickly evacuated
the home as the contractors were arriving to remove the asbestos.
The contractors worked to contain the fire until firefighters
arrived on scene.

Firefighters arrived on scene just before 8 a.m. and extinguished
the remainder of the fire in the attic.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mandatory Saskatchewan Asbestos Registry Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Gibson of The Lloydminster Meridian Booster reports that the
first steps towards a province-wide registry for buildings
containing asbestos have been taken, but the Saskatchewan NDP are
wondering if it's enough.

Earlier, the Labour Relations and Workplace Safety Ministry
announced they would be launching a webpage with information about
asbestos, including a list of government buildings known to
contain it.

Minister Don Morgan said the government will be asking school
districts, universities, health regions and municipalities to
submit the same information to be posted to the website.

Submitting is voluntary at this time, although Morgan said they
haven't completely ruled against making it mandatory.  "What we
want to do is have some discussion to find out what information
they have and how accurate that information might be," he said,
adding the ministry wants to know if a mandatory list is a
productive approach to improving safety around asbestos.

"It certainly doesn't remove the asbestos and it doesn't make the
building in and of itself safe, but if it promotes some general
public awareness, then it's a worthwhile exercise to go through."

Asbestos was commonly used in construction and renovations prior
to 1980, and Morgan estimated around 80% of buildings in
Saskatchewan contain asbestos, usually in the form of insulation
around heating and cooling pipes.  Exposure to asbestos can cause
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer caused by inhaling asbestos
fibers, and asbestosis, the scarring of lungs.

Cam Broten, the Saskatchewan NDP's health critic, said the website
is in response to private members' legislation brought forward by
himself last week but added the Sask. Party hasn't taken the issue
far enough.

"I'm encouraged that the Sask. Party took some initial steps in
recognizing the merit of this and they said they're open to
considering more, but we don't know yet," said Broten, adding
Morgan has dodged the question about whether they will move to
make the registry mandatory.

"This information would be a comprehensive site where individuals
could get as much information as they need in order to make
informed decisions."

Broten said he wants to raise awareness about asbestos and its
presence in Saskatchewan buildings to protect residents and
workers.

"It's about raising the awareness within society about the harmful
effects of asbestos, but it's also a very practical thing.  If
you're a tradesperson going into a building to do work, it would
be very helpful to be able to go and get a definitive word as to
whether or not asbestos is there and how it's encapsulated."

The bill has passed first and second readings in legislature, but
Broten said the ball is now in the Sask. Party's court.

The process of removing asbestos can often cause more problems
than leaving it, as disturbing asbestos through repair,
maintenance and renovations can release the fibers into the air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Corp, Michelin Face Mesothelioma Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates of The Southeast Texas Record reports that the widow
of Herbert Carmon has filed an asbestos suit against Goodrich
Corp. and Michelin North America.

Martha Carmon filed the suit Nov. 9 in Jefferson County District
Court.

According to the lawsuit, Herbert Carmon was employed by B.F.
Goodrich in Jefferson County, where he was exposed to asbestos
dust and fibers.

"As a result of such exposure, Herbert Carmon developed an
asbestos related disease, pleural disease and mesothelioma/lung
cancer, from which she died a painful and terrible death on July
24, 2011," the suit states.

The suit accuses the defendants of negligently failing to warn
employees of the dangerous of asbestos.

The plaintiff is suing for exemplary damages.

Beaumont attorney Keith Hyde of the Provost & Umphrey Law Firm
represents her.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. E193-581.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Kills 13 Years After Boiler Repair Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canterbury Times reports that a cleaner died after being
exposed to asbestos when her boiler was replaced -- 13 years
before her death.

Kathleen Wood, 60, died of asbestos-related cancer at her home in
Suffolk Road, Canterbury on Sept. 1.

Miss Wood's daughter Sharon Brazier told an inquest in Canterbury
on Nov. 1: "When the boiler was removed the floor, cupboards and
doors were covered in asbestos."

Pathologist Miklos Perenyei said a postmortem examination revealed
a large tumor surrounding Miss Wood's right lung.  He said
asbestos fibers were still present in her lungs and said her death
was caused by malignant mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.

He added:  "Sometimes, asbestos-related conditions happen a long
time after exposure.  It doesn't have to be a long exposure --
sometimes, one extensive exposure to asbestos dust is enough."

Coroner Rebecca Cobb returned a verdict of death by asbestos and
said the case was unusual because asbestos-related deaths usually
lead to a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AWU Relates Unions' Role in Hardie Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Howes for The Sunday Telegraph relates that the most
confronting part of being the national secretary of the AWU is
meeting with members of the union with diseases such as asbestosis
and mesothelioma and who are battling to get on with life.

They carry on as best they can, bravely putting their families
ahead of their own welfare.

But beneath the courage lies an abiding anger a sense of betrayal
that they were left unprotected and exposed to an invisible
killer.

The physical toll their disease has taken on them is visible for
all to see.  The emotional toll on their families is not visible
but is ever-present.

The telemovie Devil's Dust, screened recently on the ABC, reminded
us all of the dangers of asbestos, the toxic building material
that has caused so much sickness and death across the world.

And the danger posed by asbestos has not gone away.  Breathing in
airborne asbestos fibers is still a major health hazard, and many
of our homes and workplaces are still riddled with it.

Simply renovating your house could leave you exposed to asbestos
fibers and lifelong health problems.

About 600 people die of asbestos-related diseases each year.  We
have to remain vigilant, and treat asbestos with extreme caution.

The federal government has begun cleaning up Australia's asbestos
legacy, and is setting up an Office of Asbestos Management to
oversee the management and removal of asbestos.  Unions want to
see this agency spearhead a national plan to eradicate all
asbestos from Australia by 2030.

But there is another important lesson from Devils Dust that
shouldn't be forgotten.

The fight between the victims of asbestos-related diseases and
James Hardie Industries was David and Goliath stuff.  It was the
little guys up against an industrial giant armed with highly paid
lawyers and spin doctors.  It took determination, passion and
belief for Bernie Banton and his colleagues to finally force James
Hardie to meet its obligations.

The role of the unions and in particular of then ACTU secretary
Greg Combet along with then premier Bob Carr in forcing the hand
of James Hardie cannot be understated.

But no amount of compensation can make up for the suffering people
with asbestos-related diseases endure.

It's easy to think something like this could never happen again.
Surely we would never allow workers to be subjected to such
dangers and risks?

Well, the use of asbestos was only banned in Australia in 2003.
And you don't have to look far to see big corporations resisting
efforts to improve workplace and health and safety, or trying to
dodge their responsibilities to workers.

In our global economy, multinationals are able to easily move
manufacturing operations to locations where workplace safety laws
are not as strict as they are in Australia.

This puts pressure on governments to loosen safety laws so that
local firms can "compete" with overseas operations.  There will
always be another James Hardie scandal around the corner while we
live in a world that puts profits ahead of people.

That's why one of the most critical roles of the union movement is
to be a watchdog for workplace safety.

Earlier this week the AWU joined with other unions to release a
report into workplace safety for workers on oil and gas rigs.

The report found mistrust and a lack of communication between
safety regulators in that industry and unions.

When two workers were killed on a rig in Bass Strait a few months
ago, it was six days before union workplace safety inspectors were
allowed to inspect the site.  The lack of co-operation was simply
outrageous.

It gives credence to the view held by many that major oil
companies will sacrifice life and limb in the rush to extract as
much oil as possible.

It is a tragedy every time someone dies as a result of something
that has happened to them at work.

Bernie Banton showed us we should not accept these tragedies as
mere accidents.  We should use the wrongs of the past to inspire
us, and fight to prevent them happening again.

Paul Howes is national secretary of the AWU.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor MPs Spotlight Former Solicitor's History
---------------------------------------------------------------
It was 2007 and asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton -- who had
terminal cancer -- had called Abbott "a flea."  Abbott had
dismissed as "a stunt" Banton's bid to lodge a petition backing
subsidies for mesothelioma drug Alimta, relates Samantha Maiden of
The Sunday Telegraph.

"Let's be upfront about this.  I know Bernie is very sick, but
just because a person is sick doesn't necessarily mean that he is
pure of heart in all things," Abbott said.

Ultimately both men conceded they had spoken in haste.

Now, Labor MPs are invoking Australia's understandable anger over
the fate of asbestos victims again to attack Julie Bishop, the
lead prosecutor in the curious case of the Prime Minister, her ex-
lover, a union slush fund and "Bill the Greek."

It's been a slow burn, with Labor MPs including NSW's Stephen
Jones laying the groundwork.  "As a former lawyer JBish should
tread carefully when trawling through the clients that former
solicitors turned MPs once worked for," Jones tweeted on Oct. 31.
On Nov. 1 he retweeted, "It is long past the time the Government
went public on Bishop's history."

And what a Pandora's box of coincidence and historical cross
currents there is, as Bishop pursues Gillard over her role in
creating a union slush fund when working for Slater & Gordon, a
law firm that made history fighting for workers' rights in
asbestos cases.

In the 1980s, working under her married name Julie Gillon, Bishop
was deeply involved in some of Slater & Gordon's biggest asbestos
cases.

Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007:  "We
had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a
speedy trial.  I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an
interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom
miners Mr. Peter Heys and Mr. Tim Barrow.  CSR was represented by
Ms. Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon).  (She) was rhetorically
asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court
queues just because they were dying."

Bishop denies that entirely.  "Absolutely not.  At all times I
acted on the instructions of the firm's clients, CSR Limited and
the state government insurance office.  I acted professionally and
ethically.  I utterly reject Peter Gordon's version," she said.
"It would be appalling for someone to draw some moral equivalence
between my role in the Wittenoom case and establishing a union
slush fund."

Robert Vojakovic of WA-based Asbestos Diseases Society says Bishop
"had a take-no-prisoners approach."

Of course, solicitors don't choose their clients.  But Stephen
Jones thinks Labor should point out Bishop's role.  "You can't
judge anyone by their clients, I suppose.  But she had some pretty
dodgy ones in my view."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Relates $9MM Verdict v Dow Chemical
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baron and Budd, one of the first law firms to successfully handle
a mesothelioma, previously announced a $9 million asbestos cancer
verdict against manufacturer Dow Chemical.  The mesothelioma
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Mr. Robert Henderson, deceased, his
widow Tanya Henderson and two daughters.  Mesothelioma attorneys
John Langdoc -- jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- and Alana Kalantzakis --
akalantzakis@baronbudd.com -- of Baron and Budd, represented the
Henderson family at trial and showed that Mr. Henderson's asbestos
exposure while working at the Dow Chemical facility led to his
diagnosis of mesothelioma (Henderson v. Dow Chemical Co., Dallas
County District Court, No. 10-07003).

According to court documents, Mr. Henderson spent much of his
career working around asbestos-containing materials.  As a
contract employee for Dow Chemical, Mr. Henderson was exposed as a
bystander to asbestos-containing Dow insulators.  One of the
largest chemical manufacturing plants in the world, Dow Chemical
employs thousands who may have been subject to asbestos exposure
as bystanders through the air.

The mesothelioma lawyers at Baron and Budd have been defending the
rights of asbestos cancer and mesothelioma patients for 35 years.
As one of the first law firms to successfully handle an asbestos
cancer/mesothelioma lawsuit, Baron and Budd remains dedicated to
battling the asbestos industry for knowingly exposing people to
harmful products that contain asbestos.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., has a
more than 30-year history of "Protecting What's Right" for
asbestos sufferers and their families.  As one of the first law
firms to successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd
continues to actively represent veterans, industry workers and
others who are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos.
Visit Baron & Budd's dedicated mesothelioma Web site Mesothelioma
News at http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/or call 1.866.855.1229
for information on medical treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors
and treatment centers, high risk jobs, veterans issues and
financial assistance for asbestos cancer care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Clarifies Role in Barraba Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Clifford of The ABC News reports the head of the
Woodsreef Taskforce, Brad Mullard, has defended the Taskforce's
role in dealing with the remediation of Barraba's derelict
asbestos mine.

The Taskforce visited Barraba in July, but met opposition from the
community who argued against the closure of Crow Mountain Road,
through the mine site.

Landholders also raised concerns about not being allowed to sit on
the Taskforce, impacts on land values and tourism and the long-
term future of the town.

Mr. Mullard says the Taskforce cannot deal with these issues
because its job is to co-ordinate demolition activities, air
monitoring and the management of hazardous stockpiles.

"The Taskforce is not a decision-making body [and] there's a whole
process that the Department of Primary Industries has been
running, including inviting public comment, so it's very
misleading to say the community isn't being consulted [because]
they are," he said.

"They're being asked to provide information about different
aspects of the process, but it's just that the Taskforce isn't
dealing with most of what the community is concerned about."

Brad Mullard says more is being done to involve the Barraba
community.

"So, I think there's a misunderstanding about what the role of the
Committee is [because] it's not there to make decisions on road
closures or what works would be undertaken," he said.

"The Taskforce is there to do the actual contracting work, but we
have taken on board the community's concerns and what is being
proposed is the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee."

Brad Mullard says tenders have been issued for air monitoring at
the site.

He says the Taskforce won't be reporting to the state government
on its progress until after Christmas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Credit Cap Hits Sri Lanka Fibro Sheets Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunday Leader (Sri Lanka) reports the 18% credit growth
ceiling imposed on banks for the current year by Central Bank of
Sri Lanka to avoid a balance of payments crisis has hit the
housing sector.

This was said by Tyrone Rudolph, Vice President-Marketing, Sri
Ramco Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd., an asbestos sheets manufacturer on
Wednesday, Nov. 14.

As a result of these curbs, industry-wide sales are expected to be
lower by 40% year on year (YoY) this year, he said.

Ramco is among the top 2-3 players in this industry in the island,
according to Prem Shanker, CEO Ramco Industries Ltd., the Chennai
based parent company of Ramco Lanka.

Rudolph said that their main local consumer base was the retail
sector.

This sector includes the ordinary consumer who generally acquires
housing loans from banks to build their houses.

"That sector too has been hit by the credit ceiling, the cascading
effect of which is that it has also caused a dent in Sri Lanka's
asbestos sheet manufacturing industry's sales," he said.

Ramco which saw its topline grow by 20% YoY to Rs3.0 billion last
year now expects this growth to retard by 40% this year in line
with industry projections due to those credit controls imposed by
the Government of Sri Lanka/CBSL this year.

The seemingly unkindest cut suffered by Ramco as a result of this
ceiling is that the company had had invested in a new Rs1.1
billion production facility at Matugama earlier this year, which
plant was coincidentally opened during the period CBSL imposed the
credit growth ceiling on banks.

"Our plants are running at under-capacity as a result, which is
also true with regard to all the players in the industry are
concerned," said Rudolph, whose company is a BoI operation.  He
however expected to see better days next year.  The company
additionally runs a plant in Makandura, with both plants having a
combined capacity to produce 380,000 metric tons of asbestos
sheets annually.

Its General Manager Bandula Gunaratna however said that sales had
picked up in September and October, but were still lower on a YoY
basis.  The company provides employment to 320.

Asbestos, from which asbestos sheets are manufactured, is an
imported product, imported from countries such as Brazil and
Canada.

"The rupee depreciation has also hit us, making imports more
expensive," he said.

"However our operations are still profitable despite taking a hit
on margins," said Gunaratna.

He further said that with development works taking place in the
South, that turned out to be their biggest market currently,
contributing 28% to their topline.  That was followed by the
Western Province with 25%.

"The contribution to our top line from the North and East is also
in double digit terms," said Gunaratna.

He however said that they were unable to get business in any of
the Indian funded housing development projects in the North as
those were for houses with tiled roofs as opposed to asbestos
sheets.

But Rudolph said that asbestos sheets had a bigger overall market
share in the roofing business, with a 30% stake, while the tile
industry has a 20% market share.  Another player in the roofing
market is the GI sheets sector.

Shanker said that blue asbestos is banned as it's believed to be
cancer causing.  The sheets that they manufacture are those that
are turned out from the chrysotile variety of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Rules on Celotex PD Committee Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and
remanded for further proceedings a bankruptcy court order denying
the request of the Property Damage Advisory Committee to compel
payment of counsel fees from the Asbestos Settlement Trust
established in the Chapter 11 cases of The Celotex Corporation and
Carey Canada, Inc.

The bankruptcy court held that the Committee's claims-processing
duties ceased after Aug. 12, 2009 -- the cut-off date for filing
or processing any additional claims against the Asbestos Trust.
The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court, and the
Committee appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit, however, ruled that the Committee correctly
pointed out that its duties are broader than facilitating the
processing of new property damage claims.  The Trustees are
obligated to furnish the Committee with annual financial reports
and reports regarding the number and type of claims disposed of
during the previous fiscal year.  The Asbestos Trust Agreement
appears to contemplate some level of review and approval of these
reports by the Committee.

"Therefore, we cannot conclude that August 12, 2009 -- the cut-off
date for filing new claims against the Trust -- is determinative
of whether the Committee was performing its duties under the Trust
Agreement," the Eleventh Circuit said.

"At this juncture, we need not delineate all the Committee's
duties under the Trust Agreement.  It suffices for now to say that
at least some duties under the Trust Agreement were broader than
those identified in the [Third Amended and Restated Asbestos
Property Damage Claims Resolution Procedures], and that the
Committee performed those broader duties even after the cut-off
date for filing new claims against the Trust."

The case before the Appeals Court is, THE PROPERTY DAMAGE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CELOTEX ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT
TRUST, Defendant-Appellee, No. 12-11221 (11th Cir.).  A copy of
the Eleventh Circuit's Nov. 16, 2012 decision is available at
http://is.gd/FamlU0from Leagle.com.

                        About Celotex Corp.

The Celotex Corporation manufactured, marketed, and distributed
building products.  Carey Canada Inc. mined asbestos until it
ceased operations in 1986.  Celotex and Carey Canada sought
chapter 11 protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 90-10016) on
Oct. 12, 1990.  At the time of the filing, Celotex and Carey
Canada had been named as defendants in thousands of lawsuits filed
by Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and in hundreds of lawsuits
filed by Asbestos Property Damage Claimants.  On Dec. 6, 1996, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Confirming the Modified Joint
Plan of Reorganization for Celotex and Carey Canada.  A principal
feature of the confirmed Plan was the creation of the Asbestos
Settlement Trust under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(g) "to address,
liquidate, resolve, and disallow or allow and pay Asbestos Claims,
which will operate in accordance with the Asbestos Claims
Resolution Procedures."


                           *********

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  * * *