CAR_Public/121130.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 238

                             Headlines

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Class Action Lawsuit
ALLY FINANCIAL: Sued for Using False Foreclosure Documentation
ARLINGTON ASSET: Continues to Defend "Hildene" Class Suit
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Overdraft Fees
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Faces Another Overdraft Fee Class Action

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Continues to Defend BNSF in Antitrust MDL
BIG TOBACCO: Judge Allows Plaintiffs' Expert Witness to Testify
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
COOPER INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Class Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending in Maryland

COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Delaware Suits Over Proposed Aetna Merger
COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Maryland Suits Over Proposed Aetna Merger
CROSSMARK INC: Ex-Workers Lose FLSA Class Certification Bid
EARTHLINK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Consumer Privacy Class Action

ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Scott" Class Suit
GOOGLE INC: Renews Objections to Gmail Privacy Class Action
HARBOR FREIGHT: Recalls 108,000 Cordless Drills Due to Fire Risk
HARLAND CLARKE: Denies Liability in Suits Over LaserPro Software
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.

HIGHMARK: Proposed Insurance Class Action Settlement Faces Delay
HOSTESS BRANDS: Former Employee Files WARN Class Action
INDIANA: Hoosiers Mull Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits
INTERLINE BRANDS: Chartis Not Obligated to Indemnify Interline
KNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid 911 Fees of Up to $5 Mil.

LINDEN RESEARCH: Judge Partly Certifies "Second Life" Users' Class
LIVINGSOCIAL: Feb. 8 Claims Deadline Set in $4.5-Mil. Settlement
NEWS INT'L: Ex-CEO Wants Out of Phone Hacking Class Action
NUFARM: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Investment Group Files Class Suit vs. Execs.

PIPER JAFFRAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in New York
POWERSHARES DB: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
POWERSHARES DB: Deutsche Bank Defends Suits Related to RMBS
POWERSHARES DB: Trust Preferred Securities Suit Remains Pending
SANDISK CORP: Awaits Decision on Petition in "Ritz" Class Suit

SANDISK CORP: Opening Brief in SD Cards Suit Appeal Due Mar. 2013
SEABRIGHT HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Enstar Merger-Related Suits
STEP2 CO: Recalls 15,500 Children's Riding Toys Due to Fall Risk
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Massachusetts Wage Law Suit Resolved in Sept.
TORO CO: Recalls 2,631 Z Master Riding Mowers Due to Fire Hazard

UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Deal Administrator Pays Claimants
UNITED ONLINE: Response to Consolidated RICO Complaint Due Dec. 7
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Violations Suits
UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Class Status in Quebec Suit Dismissed
UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suit in New York

UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Suit Over Rebranding of UPS Store
UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Cobell Class Action Settlement Finalized
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Judge Rules on Motions in Pick-a-Payment Suit
WELLNX LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Customers' Recorded Calls
YELP INC: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Remains Pending

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comfort Systems Still Can't Estimate Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Still Defends 6,900 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor Has No Ongoing Leslie-Related Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor's Spence & Hoke Units Still Face Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Faced 230 Cases at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Inc. Can't Estimate Liability for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Various PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 18,341 Pending Claims End Sept.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had $5 Billion Gross Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Continues to Defend Respirator Mask Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Recorded $28MM Liability for Aearo Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair's Units Had 1,900 PI Suits at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.84BB Net Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax's Accrued Liability Was $66MM at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Ct. Affirms Jury Judgment in Suit v. Kaiser

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah Limitations Statute Bars Claims v. Cooper
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Stay of Plant Insulation's Plan Orders
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Blocked From Prematurely Obtaining Fees
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Panel Remands 14 Suits to Calif. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Stayed for Insufficient Facts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Refuses to Amend 4-Year Old Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Affirms Ruling in SWU v. Celotex Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Denies Colleges' Appeal in Celotex Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Ct. Allows Honeywell's Reconsideration Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Awarded Damages Due to Breach of Contract

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Request for Billing Docs From CSX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Court Reverses Judgment Favoring
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Study Considers Logging at Libby's Forest
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Leader Pushes HB 380 to Pass Senate Floor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North America's 1st Croat Church to be Demolished

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bishop Allegedly Maneuvered Delay of Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers Back Sheffield Council on Fibro Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AEC and ADR Retains NSW Awardee for 2012 Campaign
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Top 2011 Product Liability Verdicts Named
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rwanda Roofing Abatement Costs to Reach Rwf23 Bln

ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Activists Call for Fibro-Free Asia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro In Old Storm Dump Add 80 Days Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Randwick Abatement Activity Stirs Up Resident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Expert Joins The Asbestos Institute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test at Cwmcarn Shows Very High Airborne Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Awarded $6.8 MM Verdict v. Ford et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cost Halts Plan on Victoria's Schools With Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glendowie Incident Forces Auckland Council Review
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Ruins of Fire-Razed Former Convent
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agco Corp., 66 Others Face Meso-Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Firm Fined EUR10K for School Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Raises Concern on Cwmcarn Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grant Aids Philadelphians From Long Fibro History
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Degraded Fibro Remain Littered at Howden Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Concern Clinics for Cwmcarn Students Held

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASTM Holds "Asbestos Laboratory Issues" 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Circuit Vacates Rule, Sacks Expert Testimony
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Closure of Motocross Track Hits Local Businesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ayrshire Gives GBP155K Job to Notorious Firm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Kills Retired Hampshire Lorry Driver

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialist Says Fibro in Schools Is "No Surprise"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentenced Health Violator Files for Pauper Status
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Karen Banton Raises Awareness Week
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADRI Launches Campaign on Awareness Week
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cuts Full Day's Work In Inverell Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso-Widow Honored Member of the British Empire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquiry Urged Over Waltham School Abatement Deals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Italy Needs to Remove Fibro From 40,000 Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor MP Insists Fibro Roof by MCCAA Is Not Safe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Polk City Council Approves Pipeline Replacement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADFA Head Takes on Risks in DIY Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD Kills Former Cleaner From Bridport
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Firm Moves to North East Headquarters

                          *********



ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. is defending a class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is involved in various claims, legal actions and
regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business
and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $525,000 at
September 30, 2012, against certain current claims and legal
actions.  The Company is presently a defendant in a class action
lawsuit; however, it does not believe that the plaintiff class, if
finally certified, is more likely than not to prevail.
Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded for this matter.  The
Company believes that the disposition of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position, comprehensive income or cash flows.  It is the Company's
policy to expense costs associated with loss contingencies,
including any related legal fees, as they are incurred.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Sued for Using False Foreclosure Documentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class says 19 banks lied
and used false documentation to foreclose on homes, a class claims
in United State District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The case is John Anctil; Lee Babb; Charles Ferris; Consuelo Ferris
v. Ally Financial; Aurora Loan Services.


ARLINGTON ASSET: Continues to Defend "Hildene" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Arlington Asset Investment Corp. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit initiated by Hildene Capital Management, 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 August 19, 2011, Hildene Capital Management, LLC filed a
purported class action complaint captioned Hildene Capital
Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (d/b/a
Arlington Asset Investment Corp.), FBR Capital Trust VI, FBR
Capital Trust X, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and John and
Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 11 Civ. 5832, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On August 15, 2012, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Specifically, the court dismissed in their entirety plaintiffs'
derivative claims with prejudice and their claims based on the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act without
prejudice.  Moreover, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims against the Company for tortious interference, unjust
enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
other than to the extent they were based on plaintiffs' theory
that the challenged sale of preferred securities out of the
collateralized debt obligations was not permitted by the governing
documents, or fell outside the scope of the governing documents or
arose from an alleged conflict of interest of co-defendant Well
Fargo Bank, N.A.  The Company's answer to the amended complaint
was filed on September 17, 2012.

The Company says it is currently incurring legal expenses in
connection with this matter.  The Company's insurance carriers
have informed it that potential losses related to this matter
based on current claims will not be covered by its insurance
policies.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 2012, Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and its Arkansas
state chartered subsidiary bank, Bank of the Ozarks (the "Bank")
were served with a summons and complaint filed on December 19,
2011, in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division
III, styled Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank
of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have harmed the plaintiffs,
former customers of the Bank, by improper, unfair and
unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft
fees from the plaintiffs.  According to the complaint, plaintiffs
claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to automate its
overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and inequitably
manipulates and alters customers' transaction records in order to
maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of
posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual
sequence in which such items are presented for payment.
Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers
do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment
policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading.
Plaintiffs' complaint also alleges that these actions and
omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The plaintiffs seek to have the
case certified by the court as a class action for all Bank account
holders similarly situated, and seek a declaratory judgment as to
the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies,
restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the
putative class as a result of the actions cited in the complaint,
disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
together with pre-judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are unfounded and
intends to defend against these claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Faces Another Overdraft Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a consumer hit Bank
of the Ozarks with a nationwide class action in Florida on
Nov. 21, claiming the bank engages in numerous practices to
maximize the amount of overdraft fees it collects, including the
intentional manipulation of customer transaction records.

Plaintiff Michael Arnold alleges that, in addition to using
sophisticated software that illegally manipulates customer account
information in order to boost income from overdraft charges, the
bank violates the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Continues to Defend BNSF in Antitrust MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against
an antitrust multidistrict litigation, 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.

BNSF Railway Company and other Class I railroads have been subject
since May 2007, to some 30 similar class action complaints
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws.  The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages.  These cases were
consolidated in the federal district court of the District of
Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (In
re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1869).  Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed
against BNSF Railway Company and three other Class I railroads in
April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the class sought by the
plaintiffs.  As a result, with some exceptions, rail customers who
paid a fuel surcharge on non-Surface Transportation Board
regulated traffic between July 2003 and December 2008 are part of
a class that, subject to appeal, can be tried jointly in a single
case.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.  The
Company does not currently believe that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material effect on its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.


BIG TOBACCO: Judge Allows Plaintiffs' Expert Witness to Testify
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec judge has agreed to hear
the testimony of a prominent witness in a massive class-action
lawsuit against Big Tobacco, a man the industry has labeled as
biased and ill-informed.

Robert Proctor is a historian from California's Stanford
University who has published extensively on the tobacco industry
in books and academic papers.  He's also no stranger to tobacco
litigation, having testified in some 30 trials.

He was called to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs behind a
landmark C$27 billion lawsuit in Quebec that pits an estimated 1.8
million Quebecers against three major tobacco manufacturers.

The defendants -- Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.; Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges; and JTI-Macdonald -- have argued that the dangerous health
effects of tobacco have been common knowledge for decades and
there was no conspiracy to hide it.

Justice Brian Riordan decided late on Nov. 26 that he wanted to
hear from Mr. Proctor.  He admitted as evidence part of his 100-
plus page report, which critiques other reports done by three
industry-paid historians on how much Quebecers knew about tobacco
risks.

Lawyers for the tobacco firms spent the day attacking Mr.
Proctor's credibility.  They tried to convince the judge that the
professor had an agenda beyond critiquing historians' reports.

The judge allowed about 30 pages into the record.

As for the rest of his report -- which one tobacco lawyer
described as 75 pages of anti-tobacco advocacy -- Justice Riordan
said he would take it under advisement.

Mr. Proctor doesn't couch his words when describing what
conclusions he draws about the tobacco industry from his research.
He has described tobacco companies in writings as liars,
cockroaches and cancer-mongers and he says cigarettes should be
abolished.

Mr. Proctor did not hide his opinions on Nov. 26.

"I believe it is wrong for an industry to kill millions of
people," said the author, researcher and self-described public
health advocate, during a hearing to determine whether he should
be granted expert status.

"I'm open to alternative views, but I'm not neutral about what
your client has done to the lungs of the world."

Mr. Proctor, who has more than a quarter-century of experience,
has testified in dozens of trials in the United States.  He admits
that he has earned more than C$1 million for doing so.  He has
never once been disqualified from testifying.

"I'm fair, but I do think bad things have been done by the tobacco
industry," Mr. Proctor said under questioning.

"I don't think the tobacco industry wanted to kill people.  I
think it was more negligence," he added. "I'm glad they are being
brought to justice.  That's a good thing."

His testimony is the latest in a case that is described as the
biggest class-action lawsuit in Canadian history.

It's not common for experts to be excluded from testifying, one of
the tobacco lawyers said.  But he argued that the court had an
obligation to prevent Mr. Proctor's testimony.

"The Supreme Court has said as recently as 2011 that the court has
a gatekeeper function," said Doug Mitchell, a lawyer representing
JTI-Macdonald.

He and other tobacco company lawyers argued that not only is
Mr. Proctor biased, he knows nothing about Canada or Quebec, and
he cites documents not in the record in his report.

Another lawyer, Simon Potter, representing Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges, questioned whether Mr. Proctor's testimony was necessary.

"Is this person, this expert, going to help the court, as an
expert should, with objective, helpful advice from a specialized
field when the court is unable to decide without it?" Mr. Potter
said.

"I think the answer is no."

But the lawyers representing two plaintiffs dismissed the
arguments from Big Tobacco and said it wasn't Mr. Proctor's
mandate to know Canadian tobacco history.

"Based on a lifetime's work, you have certain ideas, based on
evidence," said plaintiff lawyer Bruce Johnston.  "Surely that
cannot disqualify you from working on a file because that would
result in the most qualified people being excluded."

Plenty of witnesses have already appeared before the Quebec
Superior Court since the trial began last March, including
numerous former and current tobacco industry executives.

The case has already heard more than 80 days of testimony with
thousands of pages of documents filed into evidence.

It has taken 13 years to reach the trial phase.  It stems from two
cases that were filed in 1998, certified and consolidated in 2005
by Quebec Superior Court, and there were motions, delays and
appeals before it got underway in 2012.

Mr. Proctor's testimony on his report was set to begin on Nov. 27.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in Tennessee,
according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In July 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Tennessee, against the Company and
certain of its officers on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, management, future business
prospects and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock,
the safety and efficacy of Augment, its prospects for U.S. Food
and Drug Administration approval and inadequacies in Augment's
clinical trials.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.  In February 2012, the Company and the other
defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in June 2012, and
the Court heard oral arguments on the motion in September 2012.
The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the motion.

If the Company is not successful in its defense of the class
action litigation, the Company could be forced to make significant
payments to, or enter into other settlements with, its
stockholders and their lawyers, and such payments or settlement
arrangements could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, operating results and financial condition.  Additional
lawsuits with similar claims may be filed by other parties against
the Company and its officers and directors.  Even if such claims
are not successful, these lawsuits or other future similar
actions, or other regulatory inquiries or investigations, may
result in substantial costs and have a significant adverse impact
on the Company's reputation and divert management's attention and
resources, which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, operating results or financial condition.

The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims in the
class action litigation.  The outcome of the matter is uncertain,
however, and the Company cannot currently predict the manner and
timing of the resolution of the lawsuits, or an estimate of a
meaningful range of possible losses or any minimum loss that could
result in the event of an adverse verdict in the lawsuits.  In
connection with these claims under its applicable insurance
policies, as of September 30, 2012, the Company cumulatively
recorded $262,500 for legal defense expenses.

BioMimetic Therapeutics (NASDAQ: BMTI) is a biotechnology company
specializing in the development and commercialization of
clinically proven products to promote the healing of
musculoskeletal injuries and diseases, including therapies for
orthopedics, sports medicine and spine applications.  All Augment
branded products are based upon recombinant human platelet-derived
growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), which is an engineered form of PDGF,
one of the body's principal agents to stimulate and direct healing
and regeneration.  The Company is headquartered in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COOPER INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System v. Cooper Industries plc et. al. are
asking the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio for permission to file an amended complaint, according to
Cooper Industries plc's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On May 21, 2012, Cooper entered into a Transaction Agreement (as
amended, the "Transaction Agreement") with Eaton Corporation
("Eaton"), Eaton Corporation Limited ("New Eaton") and certain
other entities.  Under the terms of the Transaction Agreement, New
Eaton will acquire Cooper with each Cooper shareholder entitled to
receive $39.15 in cash and .77479 of a newly issued New Eaton
ordinary share in exchange for each outstanding Cooper ordinary
share (the "Acquisition").  In connection with the Acquisition,
Eaton will merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of New Eaton, a
newly formed Irish company (the "Merger").  As a result of the
Acquisition and Merger, both Eaton and Cooper will become wholly
owned subsidiaries of New Eaton (the "Transactions").  The
Transactions have been approved by the boards of directors and
shareholders of both Eaton and Cooper. The closing of the
Transactions is subject to customary closing conditions, including
regulatory approvals under the antitrust laws of certain
jurisdictions, and is expected to close in 2012.

On July 9, 2012, two purported Cooper shareholders, the Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and Frank E. Waters,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, styled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement
System v. Cooper Industries plc et. al., Case No. 1: 12-cv-1750,
challenging the transaction.  The complaint alleged that Cooper,
its directors and Eaton disseminated a preliminary proxy statement
in connection with the transaction that contained material
omissions and misstatements in violation of federal securities
laws.  The alleged omissions and misstatements concerned: (a) the
sales process leading to the proposed acquisition and (b) the
analysis performed by Cooper's financial advisor.  The complaint
further alleged that the conduct of Cooper's directors constituted
shareholder oppression in violation of Irish law.  Plaintiffs
requested that consummation of the transaction be enjoined.

On October 16, 2012, the Court granted Cooper's motion to dismiss
the litigation.  On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion requesting the Court to permit the Plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.

Cooper and Eaton believe that the claims asserted in the motion
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Coventry
Health Care, Inc. and several of its current and former officers,
directors and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering and maintaining
Company stock in the Plan after it allegedly became imprudent to
do so and by allegedly failing to provide complete and accurate
information about the Company's financial condition to plan
participants in SEC filings and public statements.  Three similar
actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in the same court
and were consolidated on December 9, 2009.  An amended
consolidated complaint has been filed.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to
Certify the Court's March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both of those motions
were denied.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and will vigorously contest and defend against the allegations in
the consolidated lawsuit.  Although it cannot predict the outcome,
the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of operations and
comprehensive income.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities
class action against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and three of its
current and former officers in the U.S District Court for the
District of Maryland.  Subsequent to the filing of the complaint,
three other shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with
the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four
shareholders submitted a stipulation to the court regarding
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead
and liaison counsel.  In December 2009, the court approved the
stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated
and amended complaint.  The purported class period is February 9,
2007, to October 22, 2008.  The consolidated and amended complaint
alleges that the Company's public statements contained false,
misleading and incomplete information regarding the Company's
profitability, particularly with respect to the profit margins for
its Medicare Private-Fee-For-Service products.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated March 31,
2011, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to that part of the court's March 31,
2011 Order which denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion for reconsideration was denied, but the
court did rule that the class period was further restricted to
April 25, 2008, to June 18, 2008.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously contest and defend
against the allegations in the lawsuit.  Although it cannot
predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations and comprehensive income.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Delaware Suits Over Proposed Aetna Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits in
Delaware arising from its proposed merger with a subsidiary of
Aetna Inc., according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 19, 2012, the Company, Aetna Inc. ("Aetna") and Jaguar
Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (as amended, and as may be further amended),
pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of
certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and into
Coventry, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Aetna (the "Merger").  A copy of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger is filed as Annex A to the Company's definitive
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 18, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement").  Under the terms of
the agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive $27.30 in
cash, without interest, and 0.3885 of an Aetna common share for
each share of Coventry common stock (other than treasury shares
held by Coventry and any shares of Coventry common stock
beneficially owned by Aetna, Merger Sub or any person who properly
demands statutory appraisal of his or her shares).  The total
transaction was estimated at approximately $7.3 billion, including
the assumption of Coventry debt, based on the closing price of
Aetna common shares on August 17, 2012.

On August 31, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
7826-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.  On September 14, 2012, a second putative
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Nashelsky v. Coventry
Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 7868-CS, was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Coventry Board of
Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On
September 27, 2012, and September 28, 2012, putative stockholder
class action lawsuits captioned Employees' Retirement System of
the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 7905-CS and Farina v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 7909-CS, were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against the Coventry Board of Directors,
Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On October 1, 2012, an amended
complaint was filed in the Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.
action.  The complaints generally allege that, among other things,
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the public stockholders of Coventry in connection with the Merger
because the merger consideration and certain other terms in the
merger agreement are unfair.  The complaints further allege that
Aetna and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  In addition, the complaints generally allege that
certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict
Coventry's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders and
that the Merger Agreement lacks adequate safeguards on behalf of
Coventry's stockholders against the decline in the value of the
stock component of the merger consideration.  The complaints in
the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin
Islands, and Farina actions and the amended complaint in the
Brennan action also generally allege that Aetna's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed on September 21, 2012, contained
various deficiencies.  Among other remedies, the complaints
generally seek injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from
completing the proposed Merger, rescissionary and other types of
damages and costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company believes these
lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously contest and defend
against the allegations in these complaints.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Maryland Suits Over Proposed Aetna Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits in
Maryland arising from its proposed merger with a subsidiary of
Aetna Inc., according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 19, 2012, the Company, Aetna Inc. ("Aetna") and Jaguar
Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (as amended, and as may be further amended),
pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of
certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and into
Coventry, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Aetna (the "Merger").  A copy of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger is filed as Annex A to the Company's definitive
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 18, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement").  Under the terms of
the agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive $27.30 in
cash, without interest, and 0.3885 of an Aetna common share for
each share of Coventry common stock (other than treasury shares
held by Coventry and any shares of Coventry common stock
beneficially owned by Aetna, Merger Sub or any person who properly
demands statutory appraisal of his or her shares).  The total
transaction was estimated at approximately $7.3 billion, including
the assumption of Coventry debt, based on the closing price of
Aetna common shares on August 17, 2012.

On August 23, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Coyne v. Wise et al., C.A. No. 367380, was filed in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the
Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  On
August 27, 2012, a second putative stockholder class action
lawsuit captioned O'Brien v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al.,
C.A. 367577, was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.  On September 5, 2012, a third putative
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Preze v. Coventry
Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. 367942, was filed in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the Coventry Board
of Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.  The complaints in
these lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
Coventry's public stockholders in connection with the Merger
because the merger consideration and certain other terms in the
Merger Agreement are unfair.  The complaints further allege that
Aetna and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  In addition, the complaints generally allege that
the proposed Merger improperly favors Aetna and that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Coventry's
ability to negotiate with other potential bidders.  Among other
remedies, the complaints generally seek injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from completing the proposed Merger or,
in the event that an injunction is not awarded, unspecified money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company believes these
lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously contest and defend
against the allegations in these complaints.


CROSSMARK INC: Ex-Workers Lose FLSA Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The labor and employment trial team at Fish & Richardson on
Nov. 26 disclosed that a federal district court in Philadelphia
denied nationwide class status in a closely watched lawsuit over
claims that CROSSMARK, Inc. had failed to pay certain employees
for all of the time they claimed to have worked.

The ruling stems from a February 2011 federal lawsuit filed by
several dozen current and former CROSSMARK employees who alleged
the Plano, Texas-based company violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) by requiring employees to work "off the clock" without
pay.  The plaintiffs had sought to represent a class of employees
that would have included most of CROSSMARK's retail
representatives, creating a pool of plaintiffs exceeding 20,000
current and former employees and exposing the company to tens of
millions of dollars in liability.  The case is James Postiglione
et al. v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00960-NS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In a ruling released Friday, Nov. 16, Federal District Court Judge
Norma L. Shapiro concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to
demonstrate that all of the potential class members were
"similarly situated," or that they had been affected by any
"nationwide policy or plan" in violation of the FLSA.  CROSSMARK's
nationwide pay practices are fully compliant with the FLSA.
CROSSMARK requires all of its hourly employees to accurately
report all of the time they actually work, and strictly prohibits
supervisors from suggesting that employees work "off-the-clock."
The ruling found that the plaintiffs' allegations, even if taken
as true, suggested that a few local supervisors, at most, may have
given instructions that were contrary to CROSSMARK's policy.

"The decision is a complete vindication of CROSSMARK's pay
practices," says attorney Stephen Fox -- sfox@fr.com -- a
Principal in Fish & Richardson's Dallas offices.  "Going from a
class of 20,000 to a 'class' of one, this victory is not just a
home run, it's a grand slam. In fact, it's like hitting two grand
slams in the same game. CROSSMARK is a great company, managed by
great people who have great people working for them.  It treats
its employees fairly and pays them equitably."

A major factor in the Court's decision was what Judge Shapiro
described as the "patently unreliable" nature of the plaintiffs'
evidence, which included dozens of nearly identical affirmations
that were not individually drafted for the employees who signed
them and contradicted the employees' own deposition testimony or
time sheets and payroll records.  One plaintiff claimed in her
affirmation that she was only allowed to report a "fixed" 15
minutes per day for certain administrative tasks, regardless of
how long they actually took.  But her payroll records showed that
the amount of "administrative time" she actually reported was
widely varied, and, in some weeks, she reported and was paid for
as much as 16 hours of such time.  A former CROSSMARK supervisor
who had submitted an affirmation in support of plaintiffs'
allegations testified in her deposition that she always instructed
her employees to report all of the time they actually worked.

In addition to rejecting the plaintiffs' original motion to
certify a class of 20,000 plaintiffs, the judge also denied
plaintiffs' alternative proposal for a "narrowed" class of about
9,000.  With this ruling, Judge Shapiro dismissed without
prejudice the claims of all except for James Postiglione, the
first named plaintiff -- reducing the lawsuit to a class of one.

The Court's decision in Mr. Postiglione represents the third time
that CROSSMARK has successfully defended attempts to certify
classes based on alleged FLSA violations.  The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania joins two other federal district courts (Kathleen
Johnston et al. v. CROSSMARK, Inc. et al., No. 2:08-cv-01525, D.
N.J. March 10, 2009; Kathi Bowman et al. v. CROSSMARK, Inc., et
al., No. 3:09-cv-16, E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) that have denied
motions for conditional certification based on essentially similar
allegations.

Fish & Richardson -- http://www.fr.com-- is a global law firm
providing strategic counseling and litigation services to
innovative clients who seek to protect and maximize the value of
their intellectual property (IP).


EARTHLINK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Consumer Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal
judge last week shot down Internet services provider EarthLink
Inc.'s bid to toss a proposed class action alleging the company
illegally invaded consumers' privacy when it recorded telephone
conversations between its employees and members of the public.

Plaintiff Monica Garcia said in her complaint that EarthLink
instructs its employees to use wiretapping, eavesdropping,
recording and listening equipment to monitor telephone
conversations without consumers' knowledge or consent.  She lodged
claims of invasion of privacy and negligence against the company.


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Scott" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Financial Services Corp continues to defend itself
against a securities class action lawsuit initiated by William
Mark Scott, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On April 10, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
captioned William Mark Scott v. Enterprise Financial Services
Corp, Peter F. Benoist, and Frank H. Sanfilippo.  The complaint
asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between April 20, 2010, and
January 25, 2012, inclusive.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that defendants made false and misleading statements and
"failed to disclose that the Company was improperly recording
income on loans covered under loss share agreements with the FDIC"
and that, as a result, "the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times."  The
action seeks unspecified damages and costs and expenses.  The
Company says it is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss
for the case because the proceeding is in an early stage and there
are significant factual issues to be determined and resolved.  The
Company denies plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.


GOOGLE INC: Renews Objections to Gmail Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Google has
renewed its objections to a class action alleging that it
intercepts e-mails and eavesdrops on online users in violation of
California privacy laws.

In a brief filed in San Jose, the tech giant says two lead
plaintiffs took "isolated words out of context" and misapplied
state law, which "does not reach e-mails and electronic
communications."

Brad Scott and Todd Harrington sued Google in June for violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

They claim that Gmail scans e-mails for words and content, and
intentionally intercepts messages between non-Gmail subscribers
and subscribers.

Google moved to dismiss the lawsuit in October, but the class
responded earlier this month that California has a compelling
interest in enforcing privacy laws over companies that hang their
hats in the Golden State.

Still resistant, Google shot these arguments down in a reply filed
on Nov. 21 with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.

"Plaintiffs' opposition provides no viable support for their
effort to apply the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code
Secs. 630, et seq. ('CIPA'), to criminalize the automated
processing of e-mails," according to the reply authored by Cooley
LLP attorney Whitty Somvichian.

"First, plaintiffs cannot point to any statutory terms in CIPA
that refer to e-mails or electronic communications; nor can they
cite any authority that applies CIPA in the manner they propose,"
Mr. Somvichian wrote.  "Instead, plaintiffs seek to expand the
statute by taking isolated words out of context while ignoring the
express limitation of the statute to specific forms of
communications.

"Second, plaintiffs ask the court to disregard the legislative
history, which confirms that CIPA does not reach e-mails and
electronic communications.  . . .

"Third, Plaintiffs' interpretation of CIPA should be rejected
because it would criminalize widely accepted practices associated
with the delivery of e-mails, used not only by Google but by e-
mail service providers generally.  . . .

"Last, the court need not reach the substantive issue of whether
CIPA applies to e-mails at all, because plaintiffs are non-
California residents and cannot invoke the protections of a
California statute that is intended to protect 'the people of this
state.'"

Messrs. Scott and Harrington are Maryland and Alabama citizens,
respectively.

Google rejects their claims that no court has addressed the
alleged "eavesdropping" and "wiretapping," and that new technology
must be subject to the same rules as telephone and telegraph
communication.

"Plaintiffs' opposition asks the court to make new law by holding
that CIPA criminalizes the automated processing of e-mails,"
Google's 23-page brief states.  "But they cannot point to any term
in the statute that actually refers to e-mails or electronic
communications in any way.  Nor do plaintiffs cite a single case
that applies CIPA to e-mails.  To the contrary, all of the cases
plaintiffs cite regarding CIPA involve the recording of telephone
calls."

Judge Koh is scheduled to hear the case on March 21.

A copy of the Defendant Google Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion
to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in Scott, et al. v. Google
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03413 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/27/googprivrep.pdf

Google Inc. is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Ray A. Sardo, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  rsardo@cooley.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Recalls 108,000 Cordless Drills Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Harbor Freight Tools, of Camarillo, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 108,000 cordless drills.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The black trigger switch on the 19.2v cordless drill can overheat,
posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

Harbor Freight Tools has received one report of a drill
overheating and burning through the handle of the unit, which
resulted in a consumer receiving a minor injury.

This recall involves Harbor Freight Tools Cordless Drills, model
number 96526.  The drills are blue and black and have a black
trigger switch.  They have a 19.2v rechargeable battery pack.  The
drill's model number is located on a yellow label on the left side
of the drill.  "Made in China" appears in black and red lettering
on a yellow warning sticker located on the right side of the unit.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13047.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Harbor Freight Tools stores nationwide, via catalog and online at
www.harborfreight.com from April 2008 through May 2012 for between
$27 and $30.

Consumers should stop using the recalled drill immediately, remove
the rechargeable battery and contact Harbor Freight Tools to
receive a free replacement drill.  Harbor Freight Tools may be
reached toll-free at (800) 444-3353, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or
http://www.harborfreight.com/and click on Recall Safety
Information under Customer Service for more information.
Consumers can also e-mail the firm at recalls@harborfreight.com


HARLAND CLARKE: Denies Liability in Suits Over LaserPro Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
A series of commercial borrowers in various states that allegedly
obtained loans from financial institutions employing LaserPro
software of Harland Financial Solutions' ("HFS"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Harland Clarke Holdings Corp., have commenced
individual or class actions against their financial institutions
alleging that the loans were deceptive or usurious in that they
failed to disclose properly the effect of the "365/360" method of
calculating interest.  In some cases, the financial institutions
have made warranty claims against HFS related to these actions.
Some of the actions commenced by the commercial borrowers have
been dismissed, and many of the remainder, and the related
warranty claims, are at early stages, so that the likely progress
of those pending matters is not yet clear.  The Company has not
accepted any of the warranty claims.  One of the financial
institutions has commenced an arbitration against the Company
relating to a commercial borrower claim against it under the terms
of the Company's agreement with the financial institution, and
another financial institution has filed a motion in the action
brought by its commercial borrower seeking to assert a third-party
claim against the Company.  In the latter action, the Company has
moved to stay the third-party claim pending arbitration.  At the
appropriate time, the Company intends to deny liability to both
financial institutions, but the Company is not able at this early
stage to assess whether it may have any liability to either
institution or the amount of any such liability, but it believes
it is remote that either claim will result in material liability.
Due to the preliminary nature of the remaining matters, the
Company believes it is remote that any of the remaining warranty
claims will result in any material liability for the Company.

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.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Hewlett-Packard Company's common stock during the period between
August 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 26, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/hewlett/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Hewlett-Packard and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Hewlett-Packard provides products, technologies, software,
solutions and services to individual consumers and small- and
medium-sized businesses, as well as to the U.S. government, and
health and education sectors around the globe.  Hewlett-Packard
also provides software solutions through its Software business
segment.  On August 18, 2011, the Company expanded its software
offering when it announced that it would acquire control of
Autonomy Corporation plc for $10.2 billion.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
concealed that the Company had gained control of Autonomy in 2011
based on financial statements that could not be relied upon
because of serious accounting manipulation and improprieties.  In
addition, defendants concealed known negative business trends
concerning the profit margins of the Company's Enterprise Services
business, formerly known as Electronic Data Systems Corporation,
which Hewlett-Packard had acquired in August 2008 for $13.0
billion.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $29.89 per
share on February 16, 2012.

On August 22, 2012, Hewlett-Packard issued a press release
announcing a third quarter 2012 earnings per share loss of $4.49,
largely as the result of an $8.0 billion charge for impairment of
goodwill associated with the acquisition of EDS.  On this news,
the Company's stock price dropped $1.56 per share to close at
$17.64 per share on August 23, 2012.  Then, on November 20, 2012,
the Company disclosed it had taken an $8.8 billion charge related
to its acquisition of Autonomy due to serious accounting
improprieties.  On this news, the Company's stock price dropped
$1.59 per share to close at $11.71 per share, a decline of 12%, on
volume of 155 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) at the time Hewlett-Packard
acquired Autonomy, the business's operating results and historic
growth were the product of accounting improprieties, including the
mischaracterization of sales of low-margin hardware as software
and the improper recognition of revenue on transactions with
Autonomy business partners, even where customers did not purchase
the products; (b) at the time Hewlett-Packard had agreed in
principle to acquire Autonomy, defendants were looking to unwind
the deal in light of the accounting irregularities that plagued
Autonomy's financial statements; and (c) Enterprise Services'
operating margin had collapsed from 10% in 2010 to approximately
6% as of April 30, 2011, 4% as of October 31, 2011, and 3% as of
April 30, 2012, due to various reasons, including unfavorable
revenue mix and underperforming contracts.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Hewlett-Packard common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


HIGHMARK: Proposed Insurance Class Action Settlement Faces Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
judge on Nov. 26 put the brakes on a proposed settlement between
class action plaintiffs and Highmark, saying that she needed more
detail about the benefits to insurance ratepayers.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs told U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers
Conti that even after settling with Highmark, they would pursue
damages against UPMC that could reach nine figures.

"One hundred million -- is that what you're thinking?" Judge Conti
asked plaintiffs' attorney Scott Hare.

"The damage calculus would easily be in the hundreds of millions
of dollars," he replied.

Royal Mile Co., a Whitehall-based real estate firm, sued Highmark
and UPMC in 2010, saying they conspired to boost medical care and
health insurance costs.  Royal Miles was later joined by Coles
Wexford Hotel Inc. and individual ratepayer Pamela Lang.

The plaintiffs seek to settle with Highmark only.  The insurer
would give the plaintiffs $4.5 million and a trove of documents to
use against UPMC.

Highmark would pledge not to give some medical providers higher
reimbursements than others through 2014, thus enhancing
competition, Mr. Hare said at the hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Highmark also would continue to offer its low-cost Community Blue
product.  Mr. Hare said those pro-competitive pledges are worth
tens of millions of dollars to ratepayers.

"I just have to have a little more than that," said Judge Conti.
"I don't know that there's any real value here" for ratepayers.

Judge Conti said the plaintiffs and Highmark need to come up with
a way to make sure that nearly all current and recent Highmark
subscribers know how they can object to the settlement if they
don't agree.

"Somehow you need to highlight that the lawyers are being paid,"
and that there's no guarantee that ratepayers will get money,
Judge Conti told Mr. Hare.

The proposed $4.5 million payment by Highmark would cover expert
costs and attorney fees, Mr. Hare said.

Attorney Paul M. Pohl, representing UPMC, said the hospital system
doesn't agree with the characterizations of potential damages and
is seeking to have the case dismissed.

Judge Conti gave the plaintiffs until Jan. 11 to provide her with
information she needs to decide whether to give the settlement
preliminary approval.

She is handling two other lawsuits involving the region's feuding
medical institutions.  In one, West Penn Allegheny Health System
is suing UPMC, claiming it unlawfully sought to stifle
competition.  In the other, UPMC sued Highmark, claiming the
insurer used unlawful means to try to siphon business from the
region's dominant hospital system.


HOSTESS BRANDS: Former Employee Files WARN Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Uhlman, writing for Law360, reports that a former Hostess
Brands Inc. employee filed a putative class action in New York
bankruptcy court on Nov. 21 accusing his onetime employer of
terminating workers without cause and without the 60 days' advance
notice required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Mark Popovich, who worked as a loader in a Hostess shipping
facility in Ohio, sued the company and its subsidiaries IBC Sales
Corp., IBC Services LLC, IBC Trucking LLC, Interstate Brands Corp.
and MCF Legacy Inc.


INDIANA: Hoosiers Mull Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Moody, writing for Traistatehompeage.com, reports that a
group of southwestern Indiana workers say they won't pay for the
state's mistake.  A law passed last year changed the eligibility
requirements Indiana workers must meet to draw unemployment.  The
law made employees who receive regular time off, like school
employees and those who are employed on an as-needed or on-call
basis, ineligible for unemployment benefits.

"They like to say that they notified everyone and their
employers," says contracted Warrick County bus driver Amy Baker.
"If they had the sense to supposedly notify everyone, then when
those claims came to them, they should have had the sense to not
pay them."

Problems started after the Department of Workforce Development
still gave benefits to thousands of Hoosiers after the law made
them ineligible.  Now the state wants that money back.  The DWD is
trying to collect payments from Hoosiers -- after it previously
approved them for benefits.  Local workers like Ms. Baker are now
fighting back, and will soon file a class action lawsuit against
the state.

The group has hired Rick Martin to handle the case.  Mr. Martin is
an attorney with Martin & Martin Attorneys At Law in Boonville.
"I feel that they've been treated unfairly and I think that they
need representation," Mr. Martin tells Eyewitness News.
"Individually they really don't stand much of a chance, but I
think collectively and with representation they have a good chance
at succeeding in these cases."

Mr. Martin is still in the early planning stages of the case, but
says multiple class action suits could be filed based on similar
occupation.  For example, contracted bus drivers could be grouped
into a single class action lawsuit, and university food service
employees into another.  Hundreds of southwestern Indiana workers
are already on-board with the lawsuit.  Others who have been
affected by the changes to the unemployment requirements, and are
interested in joining the lawsuit, are asked to contact
Mr. Martin's law firm.  The lawsuit is expected to be filed
sometime after the first of the year.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Chartis Not Obligated to Indemnify Interline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Chartis Specialty
Insurance Co. on Nov. 21 escaped a Florida suit claiming it was
obligated to defend Interline Brands Inc. against a proposed class
action claiming Interline violated consumer protection laws
through a "junk fax" advertising campaign.

Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. determined a liability policy issued to
Interline, a distributor of maintenance and repair products,
contained an exclusion barring coverage for violations of statutes
concerning the transmission of material or information, freeing
Chartis from any obligation to defend or indemnify Interline.


KNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid 911 Fees of Up to $5 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Huggins, writing for al.com, reports that the Huntsville-
Madison County Emergency Communications District has filed a
class-action complaint against Knology seeking uncollected "911
charges," a sum that could exceed $5 million.

The district, also known as Emergency 911 Board, seeks recovery of
those unpaid 911 fees, penalties, costs and all expenses the law
allows, as well as orders that force Knology "to fulfill its
obligations to bill, collect and remit 911 charges."

The case resembles the 911 board's 2006 lawsuit against AT&T that
resulted in the phone company expanding its list of charges and
collections to include all numbers or "voice pathways" that share
a digital line -- as many as 23 -- and not just on the single
"exchange access line."

In shorter words, the district claims every phone capable of
calling 911, should be charged an emergency fee.  That cost is
$2.19 for each residential line.

"The technology by which you deliver the lines does not reduce the
burden on the 911 center," said Ernie Blair, chief executive
officer of the emergency communications district.  "So the issue
is 'What is a line? How do you count the lines? And how much
should you charge per line?'"

The AT&T case clarified that question, he said, and after the
judge's favorable ruling in 2009, the 911 board has systematically
been auditing the 55 "wired" phone companies that do business in
Madison County.

The 911 board also has a pending lawsuit filed about six months
ago against Magic Jack for the same reasons as Knology.

"It's really in everyone's best interest that we count these lines
uniformly," Mr. Blair said.

The 911 board's 19-page complaint was filed in U.S. District Court
on Nov. 19.  It claims the court has jurisdiction for the case
partly "because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $5,000,000."

The complaint said it expects more than 100 class action members
from six other states served by Knology: Tennessee, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Florida, Georgia and Kansas.

The lawsuit alleges "Knology has deprived the District and other
(emergency communication districts) of the revenue needed to
provide critical, lifesaving, emergency services, and it has
forced the district and other ECDs to raise 911 charges on other
customers.  By billing and collecting less than the required
amount of 911 charges, Knology is able to offer its services at a
lower cost to customers and has, thereby, gained a competitive
advantage over other telephone service providers who comply with
law."

The Huntsville-Madison County Emergency Communications District is
responsible for receiving and dispatching all requests for
emergency services in the county.  Its communications center links
911 personnel, Madison Police and Fire, Huntsville Fire and
Rescue, Huntsville Police, HEMSI medical and ambulance services,
Madison County Sheriff's Department and Madison County Volunteer
Fire.


LINDEN RESEARCH: Judge Partly Certifies "Second Life" Users' Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge partly certified a class of "Second Life" users in a legal
battle over the meaning of "ownership" in the virtual world.

"Second Life" is a virtual world in which users create characters
that run businesses and buy and sell virtual items using virtual
money called "lindens."

Users pay defendant Linden Research Inc. monthly "tier fees,"
similar to property taxes.  Linden says the fees are used to
maintain the server.

A group of "Second Life" users sued Linden and its former CEO
Phillip Rosedale in San Francisco Federal Court in 2010, claiming
the company lied about the nature of "ownership" within the
virtual world.

Plaintiffs Evans et al. said Linden "made a calculated business
decision to depart from the industry standard of denying that
participants had any rights to virtual items, land and/or goods."

To set itself apart from online role-playing games, Linden
"globally represented to participants . . . that their ownership
rights and intellectual property rights to the virtual items, land
and goods held in the participants' accounts would be preserved
and recognized," according to the second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs say the "Second Life" home page used to state:
"Second Life is an online, 3D virtual world, imagined, created and
owned by its residents."

But sometime after 2007, Linden removed the word "owned" from the
Web site, after a dispute over confiscated virtual property, the
plaintiffs say.

Then in 2010, Linden modified its Terms of Service to say,
"virtual land is in-world space that we license."

Plaintiffs claim that "Second Life" users had actual ownership
rights.

Linden claims that users own copyrights in the virtual land and
items, but do not have ownership interests beyond what is provided
in the terms of service.

"You have to remember this stuff isn't real. It's a game on a
computer," defendant's counsel said at oral argument.

The plaintiffs sought to certify two classes -- a main class of
"Second Life" users who owned, bought and sold virtual items; and
a subclass of users whose assets were "converted, taken, 'frozen,'
or otherwise rendered unusable."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu certified the subclass of
plaintiffs, but denied the motion in all other respects.

Judge Ryu concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they
suffered economic damages sufficient to bring consumer fraud
claims against Linden.

Saying the proposed main class is "imprecise, overbroad, and
unascertainable," Judge Ryu denied the motion to certify that
class.

The subclass of plaintiffs includes users "whose virtual items,
lindens, and/or U.S. dollars were taken without compensation."

Judge Ryu found the subclass met the requirements for
certification.

"The Subclass A claims alleging conversion, intentional
interference with contract, and unjust enrichment seek
compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief,
and the alleged injury is directly tied to the value of the
virtual land, items, and currency remaining in the terminated
accounts," the judge wrote.

A copy of the Order on Motion for Class Certification in Evans, et
al. v. Linden Research, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01078 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/27/Second%20Life.pdf


LIVINGSOCIAL: Feb. 8 Claims Deadline Set in $4.5-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Flook, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that
customers of LivingSocial are now receiving notification they may
be eligible for a refund for their unclaimed, expired deals.  They
may be entitled to a piece of a $4.5 million class-action
settlement.

LivingSocial agreed to the payout in October in order to end a
bundle of lawsuits that challenged the expiration dates on its
deals.

Claimants have until Feb. 8 to submit a claim.  A U.S. District
Court hearing is slated for the following month to grant final
approval to the settlement.

According to the settlement FAQ, "The amount, if any, paid to each
person who makes a claim depends upon the number of claims made.
No one knows in advance how much each claimant's share will be."


NEWS INT'L: Ex-CEO Wants Out of Phone Hacking Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that former News
International CEO Rebekah Brooks wants her involvement in a U.S.
class action suit over the phone hacking scandal dismissed.

"The Complaint should be dismissed as to Brooks because Plaintiffs
have failed to allege any facts to support a finding of personal
jurisdiction over her," says a motion the ex-News Corp executive's
lawyers filed last week.  Ms. Brooks, who was News International
boss from September 2009 to July 15, 2011, is facing criminal
charges in the UK in relation to the sprawling phone hacking
scandal.  A shareholder's lawsuit launched Stateside on July 19,
2011 accuses Ms. Brooks, plus co-defendants Rupert Murdoch, James
Murdoch and Les Hinton, as having violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The Avon Pension Fund, Iron Workers Local Union No.
17 Pension Fund and Lewis Wilder's class action claims that the
executives concealed the "existence and extent of illegal and
unethical newsgathering practices" at News International.

The U.S. shareholders claim that revelations of the hacking
scandal battered News Corp stock, which fell 17% in value in early
July 2011.  Ms. Brooks, a UK citizen and resident, disagrees.

"There is simply no allegation that Brooks committed any
particular act in the U.S. that damaged Plaintiffs.  In such a
case, it is unfair to conclude that Brooks -- who, during the
class period, worked for a company headquartered in the United
Kingdom -- should have foreseen being sued individually in the
U.S.," says Ms. Brooks' motion.  The motion also says that
plaintiffs have not proved that Ms. Brooks acted in a "state
embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud."

The Avon Pension Fund is represented by Randi Dawn Bandman --
randib@rgrdlaw.com -- Dennis Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com --
David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Darren Robbins --
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com --Samuel Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
-- and Armen Zohrabian -- AZohrabian@rgrdlaw.com -- of New York's
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

Mr. Wilder is represented by the same lawyers plus Arthur N. Abbey
-- nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com -- and Nancy Kaboolian --
nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com -- of Abbey SpanierRodd Abrams &
Paradis.

Megha Charalambides -- megha.charalambides@kobrekim.com -- and
Michael Kim -- michael.kim@kobrekim.com -- of New York firm Kobre
& Kim are representing Rebekah Brooks.


NUFARM: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
BusinessDesk reports that agricultural chemicals maker Nufarm
expects final court approval for settlement of a class-action suit
relating to investors who traded its shares in 2009 and 2010 when
it was accused of misstating its results and debt levels.

Nufarm has agreed to an increased settlement of AUD46.6 million
from the AUD43.5 million announced in August to cover an expanded
number of claims.  It said on Nov. 27 that the Federal Court
(Victorian Registry) was set to be asked on Nov. 28 to give final
approval of the settlement.

"All parties have now agreed with the revised settlement and it
will be considered by the court at a hearing in Melbourne
[Wednesday]," it says.

The company had previously denied all allegations of wrongdoing
and said it would vigorously defend the case.

But in August, Chairman Donald McGauchie said that in agreeing to
settle, Nufarm's board "carefully considered risks and costs
associated with a protracted litigation and demand on management's
time".

The lawsuits had reportedly attracted hundreds of disgruntled
investors who bought Nufarm shares between September 2009 and
August 2010 and had been scheduled to go to trial in September
2013.

According to The Australian Associated Press, shareholders alleged
they lost money because Nufarm failed to adequately inform the
market during the 2009-10 financial year.

The shareholders claimed they were insufficiently informed about
the impact of the declining international glyphosate market on
Nufarm's business, profitability and likely debt position.


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Investment Group Files Class Suit vs. Execs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that an investment
group launched a New York state court class action on Nov. 21
accusing bankrupt Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. executives and
their major bank underwriters -- including Citigroup Inc. and
Morgan Stanley -- of issuing false statements before a $300
million debt offering.

Proposed lead plaintiff Paul Otto Koether IRA Rollover alleges OSG
executives and their underwriters made false statements about the
company's fiscal year 2009 net income and diluted earnings per
share in the runup to the 2010 offering.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies continues to defend itself against
antitrust class action lawsuits pending in New York brought on
behalf of a proposed class of government entities that purchased
municipal derivatives, 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.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the SEC and
various state attorneys general are conducting broad
investigations of numerous firms, including the Company, for
possible antitrust and securities violations in connection with
the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment contracts and
derivatives to municipal issuers from the early 1990s to date.
These investigations commenced in November 2006.  In addition,
several class action complaints have been brought on behalf of a
proposed class of government entities that purchased municipal
derivatives.  The complaints allege antitrust violations and are
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under the multi-district litigation rules.  Several
California municipalities also have brought separate class action
complaints in California federal court, and approximately 18
California municipalities have filed individual lawsuits that are
not part of class actions, all of which have been transferred to
the Southern District of New York and consolidated for pretrial
purposes.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

The Company says no loss contingency has been reflected in the
Company's consolidated financial statements as this contingency is
neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.
Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for these matters because alleged damages have not
been specified, the proceedings remain in the early stages, there
is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being
certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and
there are significant factual issues to be resolved.


POWERSHARES DB: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of antitrust class action lawsuits
related to auction rate securities remain pending, according to
PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund's November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (the "Fund") was
formed as a Delaware statutory trust on May 23, 2005.  DB
Commodity Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
("DBCS" or the "Managing Owner"), seeded the Fund with a capital
contribution of $1,000 in exchange for 40 General Shares of the
Fund.  The Fund was originally named "DB Commodity Index Tracking
Fund."  Under the Trust Agreement, Wilmington Trust Company, the
trustee of the Fund (the "Trustee"), has delegated to the Managing
Owner the exclusive management and control of all aspects of the
business of the Fund.  The Managing Owner serves the Fund as
commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, and managing
owner, and is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank
AG (the "Bank").  Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("DBSI"), a
Delaware corporation, serves as the Fund's clearing broker (the
"Commodity Broker").  The Commodity Broker is also an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG and is an affiliate of
the Managing Owner.  The Bank of New York Mellon (the
"Administrator") has been appointed by the Managing Owner as the
administrator, custodian and transfer agent of the Fund, and has
entered into separate administrative, custodian, transfer agency
and service agreements (collectively referred to as the
"Administration Agreement").

The Bank and DBSI, including a division of DBSI, have been named
as defendants in 21 individual actions asserting various claims
under the federal securities laws and state common law arising out
of the sale of auction rate securities (ARS).  Of those 21
actions, four are pending and 17 have been resolved and dismissed
with prejudice.  The Bank and DBSI were the subjects of a putative
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserting various claims under the
federal securities laws on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased and continue to hold ARS offered for sale by the Bank
and DBSI between March 17, 2003, and February 13, 2008.  In
December 2010, the court dismissed the putative class action with
prejudice.  After initially filing a notice of appeal, the
plaintiff voluntarily withdrew and dismissed the appeal in
December 2011.

The Bank was also named as a defendant, along with ten other
financial institutions, in two putative class actions, filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, asserting violations of the antitrust laws.  The putative
class actions allege that the defendants conspired to artificially
support and then, in February 2008, restrain the ARS market.  On
or about January 26, 2010, the court dismissed the two putative
class actions.  The plaintiffs have filed appeals of the
dismissals.


POWERSHARES DB: Deutsche Bank Defends Suits Related to RMBS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank AG continues to defend lawsuits, including class
action lawsuits, related to residential mortgage backed
securities, according to PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking
Fund's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (the "Fund") was
formed as a Delaware statutory trust on May 23, 2005.  DB
Commodity Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
("DBCS" or the "Managing Owner"), seeded the Fund with a capital
contribution of $1,000 in exchange for 40 General Shares of the
Fund.  The Fund was originally named "DB Commodity Index Tracking
Fund."  Under the Trust Agreement, Wilmington Trust Company, the
trustee of the Fund (the "Trustee"), has delegated to the Managing
Owner the exclusive management and control of all aspects of the
business of the Fund.  The Managing Owner serves the Fund as
commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, and managing
owner, and is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank
AG (the "Bank").  Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("DBSI"), a
Delaware corporation, serves as the Fund's clearing broker (the
"Commodity Broker").  The Commodity Broker is also an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG and is an affiliate of
the Managing Owner.  The Bank of New York Mellon (the
"Administrator") has been appointed by the Managing Owner as the
administrator, custodian and transfer agent of the Fund, and has
entered into separate administrative, custodian, transfer agency
and service agreements (collectively referred to as the
"Administration Agreement").

The Bank and its affiliates, including DBSI (collectively referred
to as Deutsche Bank), have received subpoenas and requests for
information from certain regulators and government entities
concerning its activities regarding the origination, purchase,
securitization, sale and/or trading of mortgage loans, residential
mortgage backed securities (RMBS), collateralized debt
obligations, asset backed commercial paper and credit derivatives.
Deutsche Bank is cooperating fully in response to those subpoenas
and requests for information.

Deutsche Bank has been named as defendant in numerous civil
litigations in various roles as issuer or underwriter in RMBS
offerings.  These cases include purported class action lawsuits,
actions by individual purchasers of securities, and actions by
insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and
interest for particular tranches of securities offerings.
Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally
allege that the RMBS offering documents contained material
misrepresentations and omissions, including with regard to the
underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage
loans were issued, or assert that various representations or
warranties relating to the loans were breached at the time of
origination.

Deutsche Bank and several current or former employees were named
as defendants in a putative class action commenced on June 27,
2008, relating to two Deutsche Bank-issued RMBS offerings.
Following a mediation, the court has approved a settlement of the
case.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in putative class actions relating to
its role, along with other financial institutions, as underwriter
of RMBS issued by various third-parties and their affiliates
including Countrywide Financial Corporation, IndyMac MBS, Inc.,
Novastar Mortgage Corporation, and Residential Accredit Loans,
Inc.  These cases are in various stages up through discovery.  On
March 29, 2012, the court dismissed with prejudice and without
leave to replead the putative Novastar Mortgage Corporation class
action, which the plaintiffs have appealed.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in various non-class action lawsuits
by alleged purchasers of, and counterparties involved in
transactions relating to, RMBS, and their affiliates, including
Allstate Insurance Company, Asset Management Fund, Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corporation, Baverische Landesbank, Cambridge
Place Investments Management Inc., the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (as conservator for Franklin Bank S.S.B., Citizens
National Bank and Strategic Capital Bank), the Federal Home Loan
Bank of Boston, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, the
Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), John
Hancock Insurance Company, Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Phoenix Light SF Limited, Sealink Funding Ltd., Stichting
Pensioenfonds ABP, The Charles Schwab Corporation, The Union
Central Life Insurance Company, The Western and Southern Life
Insurance Co. and the West Virginia Investment Management Board.
These civil litigations are in various stages up through
discovery.

In the actions against Deutsche Bank solely as an underwriter of
other issuers' RMBS offerings, Deutsche Bank has contractual
rights to indemnification from the issuers, but those indemnity
rights may in whole or in part prove effectively unenforceable
where the issuers are now or may in the future be in bankruptcy or
otherwise defunct.

On February 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order dismissing claims
brought by Dexia SA/NV and Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association of America, and their affiliates.  The court dismissed
some of the claims with prejudice and granted the plaintiffs leave
to replead other claims.

On July 16, 2012, the Fourth Judicial District for the State of
Minnesota dismissed Deutsche Bank from a litigation brought by
Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc. (Moneygram) relating to
investments in RMBS, collateralized debt obligations and credit-
linked notes.  The court further denied Moneygram's motion for
reconsideration.

A number of other entities have threatened to assert claims
against Deutsche Bank in connection with various RMBS offerings
and other related products, and Deutsche Bank has entered into
agreements with a number of these entities to toll the relevant
statute of limitations.  It is possible that these potential
claims may have a material impact on Deutsche Bank.

On May 3, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ)
filed a civil action against Deutsche Bank AG and MortgageIT, Inc.
(MIT) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The USDOJ filed an amended complaint on
August 22, 2011.  The amended complaint, which asserts claims
under the U.S. False Claims Act and common law, alleges that
Deutsche Bank AG, DB Structured Products, Inc., MIT, and DBSI
submitted false certifications to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
concerning MIT's compliance with FHA requirements for quality
controls and concerning whether individual loans qualified for FHA
insurance.  As set forth in the amended complaint, the FHA has
paid $368 million in insurance claims on mortgages that are
allegedly subject to false certifications.  The amended complaint
seeks recovery of treble damages and indemnification of future
losses on loans insured by FHA, and as set forth in the filings,
the government seeks over $1 billion in damages.  On
September 23, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Following a hearing on December 21, 2011, the
court granted the USDOJ leave to file a second amended complaint.
On May 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank settled this litigation with the
USDOJ for $202.3 million.

On May 8, 2012, Deutsche Bank reached a settlement with Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corporation (Assured) regarding claims on
certain RMBS issued and underwritten by Deutsche Bank that are
covered by financial guaranty insurance provided by Assured.
Pursuant to this settlement, Deutsche Bank made a payment of $166
million and agreed to participate in a loss share arrangement to
cover a percentage of Assured's future losses on certain RMBS
issued by Deutsche Bank.  All of Deutsche Bank's currently
expected payments pursuant to this settlement were provisioned in
previous quarters.  This settlement resolves two litigations with
Assured relating to financial guaranty insurance and limits claims
in a third litigation where all the underlying mortgage collateral
was originated by Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (a subsidiary
of Capital One), which is required to indemnify Deutsche Bank.


POWERSHARES DB: Trust Preferred Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit over trust preferred
securities remains pending in New York, according to PowerShares
DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (the "Fund") was
formed as a Delaware statutory trust on May 23, 2005.  DB
Commodity Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
("DBCS" or the "Managing Owner"), seeded the Fund with a capital
contribution of $1,000 in exchange for 40 General Shares of the
Fund.  The Fund was originally named "DB Commodity Index Tracking
Fund."  Under the Trust Agreement, Wilmington Trust Company, the
trustee of the Fund (the "Trustee"), has delegated to the Managing
Owner the exclusive management and control of all aspects of the
business of the Fund.  The Managing Owner serves the Fund as
commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, and managing
owner, and is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank
AG (the "Bank").  Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("DBSI"), a
Delaware corporation, serves as the Fund's clearing broker (the
"Commodity Broker").  The Commodity Broker is also an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG and is an affiliate of
the Managing Owner.  The Bank of New York Mellon (the
"Administrator") has been appointed by the Managing Owner as the
administrator, custodian and transfer agent of the Fund, and has
entered into separate administrative, custodian, transfer agency
and service agreements (collectively referred to as the
"Administration Agreement").

The Bank and certain of its affiliates and officers, including
DBSI, are the subject of a consolidated putative class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased certain trust
preferred securities issued by Deutsche Bank and its affiliates
between October 2006 and May 2008.  Claims are asserted under
sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. An
amended and consolidated class action complaint was filed on
January 25, 2010.  On August 19, 2011, the court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  Defendants
have moved for reconsideration of the portion of the decision
denying the motion to dismiss.  On September 20, 2011, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, which no longer includes claims
based on the October 2006 issuance of securities.


SANDISK CORP: Awaits Decision on Petition in "Ritz" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation is awaiting a court decision in connection
with its petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the
lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation,
Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, according to the Company's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products.  The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers
of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures
controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and
maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using
them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other
patents for its competitive use.  On
February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant.  In
addition, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District
Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of
its Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's
lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims.  The
Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of
Ritz's allegations of wrongdoing.  On September 7, 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal.  On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a
petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal
Circuit").  On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

The briefing on appeal has been completed.  The Federal Circuit
held oral argument on October 5, 2012.  The Federal Circuit has
not issued a decision.


SANDISK CORP: Opening Brief in SD Cards Suit Appeal Due Mar. 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellants' opening brief in an appeal from the dismissal of their
antitrust class action lawsuit relating to secure digital cards is
due March 11, 2013, according to SanDisk Corporation's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v.
SD-3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Secure Digital
("SD") cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C,
Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components,
Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and
common law.  Plaintiffs allege the Company (along with the other
members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty
costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of
federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws,
which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for
SD cards.  The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by
reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and
SD-3C LLC.  On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, and on February 21, 2012, the Company and the other
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.  On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the motion
to dismiss, with prejudice.

On June 20 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  Appellants'
Opening Brief is due March 11, 2013; the Answering Brief is due
May 24, 2013: and the Reply Brief is due June 21, 2013.

The Company said it received two demand letters dated March 30,
2011, and one demand letter dated February 13, 2012, pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A Section9 ("93A Demand
Letters").  The letters gave notice of intention to file a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the
Company, SD-3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the
Defendants do not tender a settlement.  These letters generally
repeat the allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD-3C
and Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corp., et al. and against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic
defendants, and Toshiba defendants in Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al.
On April 21, 2011, the Company responded to the March 30, 2011
letters detailing their deficiencies.  On March 21, 2012, the
Company responded to the February 13, 2012 letter similarly
detailing its deficiencies.


SEABRIGHT HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Enstar Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaBright Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its November 5, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
it has agreed in principle to settle class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with Enstar Group Limited.

On November 5, 2012, SeaBright Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of two class action lawsuits that were filed on behalf
of the Company's stockholders following the announcement of the
merger agreement, dated as of August 27, 2012, among Enstar Group
Limited ("Enstar"), AML Acquisition, Corp. ("Merger Sub"), an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Enstar, and the Company.

As previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2012
(the "Proxy Statement"), on September 13, 2012, a purported
stockholder in the Company, Mitchell Daks, filed a lawsuit (the
"Daks Action") in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in
and for the County of King against the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors, and Merger Sub.  On October 5, 2012,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, along with a motion to
expedite discovery and for a briefing and hearing schedule on the
plaintiff's anticipated motion for a temporary injunction.  The
amended complaint, which purports to be brought as a class action
on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders (except the
defendants and their affiliates), alleges, among other things,
that (1) the members of the board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of the Company, failing to properly value the
Company, and ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of
interest, (2) the members of the board of directors also breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders by making materially
inadequate disclosures and material disclosure omissions with
regard to the merger, and (3) the Company and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors.  The amended complaint seeks to enjoin
consummation of the merger, or, in the event the merger is
completed, seeks to rescind the merger or recover money damages on
behalf of the Company's stockholders caused by the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  On October 26, 2012, a Court
Commissioner set November 14, 2012 as the date the Honorable
Theresa B. Doyle would hear plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction.  A November 14, 2012 hearing on plaintiff's request
for a preliminary injunction by the Honorable Theresa B. Doyle was
set by a Court Commissioner on October 26, 2012.  On November 1,
2012, Judge Doyle denied plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery
and for a briefing and hearing schedule on the plaintiff's
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction.

As also previously disclosed in Proxy Statement, on September 20,
2012, a purported stockholder in the Company, Craig Lochner, filed
a lawsuit (the "Lochner Action") in the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors, Enstar and Merger Sub.  The
complaint, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all of the Company's stockholders (except the defendants
and their affiliates, immediate families, legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants
have or had a controlling interest), alleges, among other things,
that (1) the members of the board of directors violated their
fiduciary duties because they failed to take steps to maximize the
value of the Company to its public stockholders and took steps to
avoid competitive bidding and they failed to properly value the
Company, and (2) the Company, Enstar and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors.  The complaint seeks to enjoin the
consummation of the merger, or in the event the merger is
completed, seeks to rescind the merger or recover money damages on
behalf of the Company's stockholders caused by the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  On September 26, 2012, the Company
and the director defendants filed an answer to the complaint and a
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Company and the board of directors believe that the claims in
the Daks Action and the Lochner Action are without merit.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid the potential cost and distraction
of continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of any delay to
the closing of the merger posed by the lawsuits, the Company and
other defendants have agreed in principle to settle the Daks
Action and the Lochner Action, without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing.  Such settlement is subject to execution and delivery
of definitive documentation, the closing of the merger, approval
by the Washington court of the settlement and the Delaware court
approved dismissal of the Lochner Action.  If the settlement
becomes effective, the Daks Action will be dismissed with
prejudice and the Lochner Action, if it remains pending at the
time the settlement is approved by the Washington court, will be
dismissed.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company has agreed to
make available additional information, including financial
information, to its stockholders.  The details of the settlement
will be set forth in a notice to be sent to the Company's
stockholders prior to a hearing before the court to consider the
settlement.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed
merger between the Company and Merger Sub or the timing of the
special meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled on
November 19, 2012.


STEP2 CO: Recalls 15,500 Children's Riding Toys Due to Fall Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Step2 Company LLC, of Streetsboro, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 15,500 children's riding toys.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Children who lean too far forward on the seat can go over the
handle bar and hit the ground.  This poses a fall hazard.

The firm has received four reports of incidents, with one incident
resulting in head bumps and one resulting in a minor concussion
and cuts to the gum and lip from the child's front teeth.

The recalled product is an X-Rider Car.  It is a red, plastic toy
scooter with a yellow handlebar and seat, and two blue stickers
that simulate headlights.  It is 14 inches high, 14 inches wide
and 19 inches long.  The middle of the handle bar contains the
Step2 logo.  Step2's contact information is located on the rider's
left side of the car.  Children use their feet to propel the toy.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13049.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Target and other retailers from January 2012
through August 2012 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and contact Step2 to receive a free replacement toy.
Step2 may be reached toll-free at (866) 860-1887, from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.step2.com/,and click on the "View Details" link under
Recall Information for more information.


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Massachusetts Wage Law Suit Resolved in Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit alleging Texas Roadhouse, Inc.'s failure
to comply with Massachusetts wage laws was dismissed in September
2012, following court approval of the parties' settlement,
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 25, 2012.

On January 19, 2011, a Massachusetts putative class action was
filed styled Jenna Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al, and all
others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas
Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, Texas Roadhouse of Everett, LLC and Texas
Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse.  The complaint
was filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts.  The complaint alleged a failure to comply with
Massachusetts wage laws specifically that the Company improperly
shared pooled tips with ineligible employees.  On April 30, 2012,
the parties filed a Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") seeking
preliminary court approval to settle the lawsuit; the court
approved the Agreement on September 5, 2012, and subsequently
dismissed the complaint.  Under the Agreement, the Company agrees
to pay $5.0 million, which includes payment of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, payment of expenses to administer the settlement,
and individual payments to resolve the claims of servers employed
in Massachusetts restaurants from January 18, 2005, through
September 5, 2012, the date of final court approval.  As a result
of the Agreement, as previously reported, the Company recorded a
$5.0 million charge in the first quarter of 2012 which is included
in general and administrative expenses in its condensed
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income.


TORO CO: Recalls 2,631 Z Master Riding Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with The Toro Co., of Bloomington, Minnesota,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,600 Toro(R) Z Master(R)
Riding Mowers in the United States of America and 31 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The traction drive belt can wear through the mower's fuel tank and
cause fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard.

Toro has received five reports of incidents.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves 2012 Toro Z Master Commercial 2000 Series ZRT
riding mowers.  The mowers are red and black.  "Toro" and "2000
Series" are printed on the side and "Z Master Commercial" on the
front of the mowers.  The model and serial numbers are on a metal
plate located at the front of the mower, below the seat, on the
left-hand side.  The following models and corresponding serial
numbers are included in this recall: model number 74141 with
serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to 312000784; model number
74143 with serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to 312000887; and
model number 74145 with serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to
312001178.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13048.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Toro dealers nationwide from January 2012
through August 2012 for between $7,700 and $8,700.

Consumers should stop using the recalled mowers immediately and
contact a Toro dealer to schedule a free repair and/or to check if
the repair has already been made to the mower.  Toro has contacted
registered owners of the recalled mowers.  Toro may be reached
toll-free at (855) 493-0090, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.toro.com/and
click on Product Recall Information on the bottom right-hand side
of the page for more information.


UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Deal Administrator Pays Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The administrator of United Online, Inc.'s settlement of the class
action lawsuit commenced by Anthony Michaels is in the process of
paying the claimants, according to the Company's November 5, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as Memory
Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online, Inc.
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  In December
2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action complaint
against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and
United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of Washington, Kings County,
alleging causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of California Civil Code section 1694,
dealing with dating services contracts.  In both actions, the
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages.  In April
2009, the United States District Court of the Western District of
Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez actions and
designated the Michaels action as the lead case.  In March 2010,
the parties entered into a comprehensive class action settlement
agreement.  In February 2011, the court denied final approval of
such settlement agreement.  In March 2011, the parties entered
into a revised settlement agreement and, in July 2011, the court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the revised
settlement agreement.  The parties subsequently modified the
settlement agreement in August 2011.

In June 2012, the District Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and certifying the class.  In July
2012, four separate notices of appeal of the District Court order
were filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  Such appeals have since been resolved and the order
granting final approval of the settlement and certifying the class
is final. The settlement administrator is in the process of paying
the claimants.


UNITED ONLINE: Response to Consolidated RICO Complaint Due Dec. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc.'s response to a consolidated class action
lawsuit alleging, among other things, violations of the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, is due December 7, 2012,
according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On March 6, 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion") and Apollo Global
Management, LLC ("Apollo").  The complaint alleges (1) violations
of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act against
the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting
violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud
statutes against the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act against
Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act against Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-
Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such
act against the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of
California Business and Professions Code section 17602 against
Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and
(6) unjust enrichment against all defendants.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

On March 15, 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a
purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in
United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies").  The complaint alleges (1) violations of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act against
the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes against the
Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act against the Membership Companies and
the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act against the Credit Card Companies; (4) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against the Membership
Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting
violations of such act against the Credit Card Companies; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 against the Membership Companies and the Marketing
Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment against all defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement
of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs,
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.  On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants.  The defendants' responses to the
consolidated amended complaint are due on December 7, 2012.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour laws,
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.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.  At this time, the Company does
not believe that any loss associated with these matters, would
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Class Status in Quebec Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to authorize a lawsuit pending in Quebec, Canada as a
class action was dismissed in October, according to United Parcel
Service, Inc.'s November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In Canada, three purported class-action cases were filed against
the Company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006).  The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning
the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the
Company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada.  The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge.  That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
the Company's favor.  The Ontario class action was certified in
September 2011.  Partial summary judgment was granted to the
Company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court.  The
complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed.  No appeal is
being taken from that decision.  The allegations of inadequate
disclosure were granted and the Company is appealing that
decision.  The motion to authorize the Quebec litigation as a
class action was dismissed by the trial judge in October 2012;
there may be an appeal.

The Company has denied all liability and is vigorously defending
the two outstanding cases.  There are multiple factors that
prevent the Company from being able to estimate the amount of
loss, if any, that may result from these matters, including: (1)
the Company is vigorously defending itself and believes that it
has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are
unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to
the ultimate resolution of these matters.  Accordingly, at this
time, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether
such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operation or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services.  United Parcel Service, Inc. was not
named in this case.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as
defendants.  UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60
defendants named in the amended complaint.

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.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
case.  There are multiple factors that prevent the Company from
being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result
from these matters including: (1) the court has dismissed the
complaint, with leave to amend, and the scope of the plaintiffs'
claims is therefore unclear; (2) the scope and size of the
proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal
questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class
representatives; and (4) the Company believes that it has a number
of meritorious legal defenses.  Accordingly, at this time, the
Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss
that may result from these matters or to determine whether such
loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Suit Over Rebranding of UPS Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. continues to defend itself and a
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit over the rebranding of
The UPS Store franchises, 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.

UPS and its subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a
lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The
UPS Store franchises.  In Morgate, the plaintiffs are 125
individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and a
certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand.  The trial
court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff,
which was affirmed in January 2012.  The trial court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment against the certified class,
which was reversed in January 2012.

The Company says there are multiple factors that prevent it from
being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result
from whatever remaining aspects of this case proceeds including:
(1) the Company is vigorously defending itself and believes it has
a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains
uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be
able to present.  Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not
able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result
from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Cobell Class Action Settlement Finalized
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Mike Scarcella at The Blog of
Legal Times, a high-profile Native American class action in
Washington that settled for $3.4 billion after more than a decade
of litigation is now over, the plaintiffs' attorneys said on
Nov. 26.

Lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell sued in June 1996 in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a historical
accounting of money the government held in trust accountants for
Indians.  Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana,
died last year.

The government and the plaintiffs' attorneys announced the
historic settlement in December 2009.  The deal, which potentially
compensates hundreds of thousands of class members, required
congressional approval.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have concluded review of the
settlement.

"The litigation finally has ended," a lead attorney for Ms.
Cobell, Dennis Gingold in Washington, said in an e-mail.
"Everything that Elouise Cobell spent her life fighting for now
has come true.  She is a true American hero."

Mr. Gingold represented the lead plaintiffs with a team from
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, including Keith Harper, a partner
in the firm's Washington office and William Dorris, a partner in
Atlanta and a former chair of the firm.

The deal includes $1.5 billion to compensate an estimated 500,000
Native Americans, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.  The settlement
resolved claims addressing the government's mismanagement of trust
assets, including royalty payments rooted in leases for oil, gas,
timber and grazing.

President Barack Obama said in a statement that the final approval
of the Cobell settlement clears "the way for reconciliation
between the trust beneficiaries and the federal government.

President Obama said Ms. Cobell's "legacy will be a renewed
commitment to our trust relationship with Indian Country."

According to CNN, another $1.9 billion will go into a "land
consolidation program" that will allow people to sell fractions of
land they own, which are slivers of once larger ancestral plots
that have been divided and subdivided over generations.

The group ownership of land by American Indians dates back more
than 100 years, before American Indians were permitted to write
wills.  As a result, the government says many pieces of tribal
lands are held by many owners -- possibly hundreds, if not
thousands of people per parcel.  Officials have said the project
allows individual landowners to receive greater value for their
share, while cutting administrative costs for the federal
government, which manages the Indian land trust.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he hopes the agreement helps
the government and American Indians turn the page on the ordeal.

"With the settlement now final, we can put years of discord behind
us and start a new chapter in our nation-to-nation relationship,"
he said.

The deal follows a class-action lawsuit, filed in 1996, which
accused the U.S. Department of the Interior of failing to account
for and provide revenue from a trust fund representing the value
of Indian assets managed by the government.

The missing funds at the center of the class-action case involve
what are called Individual Indian Money accounts, which are
supposed to represent the property of individual Indians.  The
accounts are held by the United States as trustee.

The lawsuit had accused the government of failing to account for
the money, failing to make proper payments, and converting tribal
money for the government's own use.

In making the announcement on Nov. 26, Pres. Obama remembered Ms.
Cobell for "her honorable work."  In 2009, she said that many
represented in the class-action lawsuit "subsist in the direst
poverty," and that the settlement is "significantly less than the
full amount to which the Indians are owed."

"It's not fair," Ms. Cobell said then of the long process to reach
a settlement, but "in the future we may be treated more fairly."


WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Judge Rules on Motions in Pick-a-Payment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge ruled on several motions from borrowers who wanted
to opt out of a class action against Wachovia Mortgage, which paid
$50 million to settle claims involving "Pick-a-Payment" mortgage
loans.

Wachovia offered the loans from 2003 to 2008, letting borrowers
make minimum payments for a limited time, under certain
conditions.

But borrowers said they were not told that when a payment was
insufficient to cover the interest, unpaid interest was tacked on
to the loan balance, which increased.  Borrowers said this
"negative amortization" was not adequately disclosed to them.

They claim that Wachovia, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, violated
state and federal laws.

Wachovia, which denied any wrongdoing, agreed to a $50 million
settlement in February 2011.

But the settlement has not put the issue to rest.  Several
individual class members seek a court declaration granting them
late opt-out status, freeing them to file separate lawsuits
against Wachovia.

Dina Flotte, who got a pick-a-payment loan, claims she learned of
the class action late.  She claims in her motion that Wachovia
told her she would have to opt out of the class action if she
wanted to file her own lawsuit.

Ms. Flotte says she wasn't able to opt out in time -- she even
received a $178.04 check in settlement of the class action -- and
offered an explanation, primarily blaming Wachovia for her delay.
But U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel didn't buy it.

"The court concludes that Flotte has not demonstrated that the
relief she requests is warranted," Judge Fogel ruled.  "Defendants
would be prejudiced by having to defend a state law UCL [Unfair
Competition Law] claim that they reasonably believed had been
settled."

Judge Fogel added that while Ms. Flotte offered an explanation for
her delay in seeking an opt-out, her explanation "is contradicted
by credible evidence submitted by defendants."  "It appears that
Flotte has remained in her home for more than four years without
making any mortgage payments whatsoever, and that when she was
offered a loan modification almost two years ago, she failed to
accept it.  Based upon this record, Flotte's request for a late
opt out will be denied."

Like Ms. Flotte, borrower Nick John Makreas said he did not make
the opt-out list, but that it wasn't his fault.

Judge Fogel found his situation more acceptable and granted
Mr. Makreas' motion for a late opt-out.

Wachovia filed six motions for enforcement of the settlement, all
of them involving late opt-out motions by borrowers.  Judge Fogel
granted two, denied another and made recommendations for further
actions on two others.

Wachovia's sixth motion involves attorney Catherine Czyz and the
judicial foreclosure of her property.  She cites counterclaims
based on Truth in Lending Act violations and other violations
connected to her pick-a-payment loan.

Ms. Czyz, who filed pro se, sought to quash Service of Process,
saying she wasn't "properly served with the instant motion to
enforce settlement, that this court lacks personal jurisdiction
over her and that she opted out of the settlement agreement."

Judge Fogel found Ms. Czyz credible and her explanations
reasonable, stating that "the court is inclined to permit Czyz to
opt out of the class action settlement.  She represents that she
did not receive notice of the action until she received the
settlement check for $178.04 at the end of October 2011."

Judge Fogel found that a declaration by a Wachovia witness could
not establish that Ms. Czyz received a notice of settlement.

Finally, Judge Fogel denied Thomas Worthington's motion to enforce
settlement.  Mr. Worthington claimed he was entitled to a loan
modification under the settlement agreement.

A copy of the Order Re Motions Heard October 16, 2012 in In Re:
Wachovia Corporation "Pick-A-Payment" Mortgage Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, Case No. 09-md-02015 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/27/Wachovia.pdf


WELLNX LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Customers' Recorded Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wellnx Life Sciences
surreptitiously records phone calls from potential customers who
discuss sensitive issues such as their weight, anxieties, and
their Social Security numbers, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


YELP INC: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit asserting violation of the California Business &
Professions Code remains pending, according to Yelp Inc.'s
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February and March 2010, the Company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the Company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on its platform to coerce local businesses to
buy its advertising products.  These cases were subsequently
consolidated in an action asserting claims for violation of the
California Business & Professions Code, extortion, and attempted
extortion based on the conduct they allege and seeking monetary
relief in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.  In October
2011, the court dismissed this action with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, but the appeal has not yet been heard.  Due to the
preliminary nature of this potential appeal, the Company is unable
to reasonably estimate either the probability of incurring a loss
or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from an appeal.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comfort Systems Still Can't Estimate Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comfort Systems USA, Inc., still can't estimate liability for
gaskets that might contain asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "In December 2011, we received a letter from
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., a distributor of plumbing supplies and
pipe, in which Ferguson stated that it had unintentionally
supplied us with gaskets that were mislabeled by a former supplier
as being non-asbestos. Ferguson currently states that we bought
approximately 29,000 gaskets that might have been mislabeled.
Ferguson further disclosed that four Ferguson customers had found
asbestos in gaskets above the 1% level at which they can be
classified as non-asbestos. No reasonable estimate of liability,
if any, is possible at this time."

Comfort Systems USA, Inc., provides heating, ventilation and air
conditioning installation, maintenance, repair and replacement
services within the mechanical services industry. The Company has
38 operating units in 72 cities and 86 locations throughout the
United States. The Company operates primarily in the commercial,
industrial and institutional HVAC markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Still Defends 6,900 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries continues to defend
asbestos-related claims in various state courts, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies,
currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-
related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small
percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied
by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of
the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds
of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been
difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually
involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to
asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition,
while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in
certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products,
the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at
this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as
defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage
with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of
experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to
cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos
cases have not been material."

CONSOL Energy Inc. is a producer of coal and natural gas for
global energy and raw material markets, which include the electric
power generation industry and the steelmaking industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor Has No Ongoing Leslie-Related Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circor International, Inc., had no ongoing costs associated with
Leslie Controls, Inc.'s asbestos litigation for the nine months
ended September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "On July 12, 2010 (the "Filing Date"), our
subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. ("Leslie") filed a voluntary
petition (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware and, simultaneously, filed a pre-negotiated plan of
reorganization (as amended, the "Reorganization Plan" or "Plan")
in an effort to permanently resolve Leslie's exposure to asbestos-
related product liability actions. On February 7, 2011, the U.S.
Federal District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District
Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's earlier order confirming
Leslie's Reorganization Plan, thus clearing the way for Leslie to
emerge from bankruptcy. On April 28, 2011, pursuant to the terms
of the Reorganization Plan, Leslie and CIRCOR contributed $76.6
million in cash and a $1.0 million promissory note (the "Note") to
fund the Leslie Controls Asbestos Trust (the "Trust"), and Leslie
emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On September 30,
2011, the District Court entered an order for the final decree
closing the Chapter 11 case. Under the terms of the Plan, all
current and future asbestos related claims against Leslie, as well
as all current and future derivative claims against CIRCOR, are
now permanently channeled to the Trust. Leslie paid off the
balance of the Note in April 2012 and, as a result, neither Leslie
nor CIRCOR has any remaining financial obligation to the Trust.

As of December 31, 2011, the net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy
liability was $1.0 million, which represented the remaining
payment to the Trust after the initial funding of $76.6 million
was made on April 28, 2011. This remaining $1.0 million was paid
to the Trust in late April 2012.

There were no ongoing costs associated with Leslie's asbestos
litigation for the nine months ended September 30, 2012. The $0.7
million bankruptcy related charges for the nine month period
ending October 2, 2011 is comprised primarily of bankruptcy
related professional fees.

CIRCOR International, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace and industrial markets. It has a global presence
and operates 24 manufacturing facilities, which are located in the
United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and
the People's Republic of China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor's Spence & Hoke Units Still Face Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Circor International, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims
have also been filed against two of our other subsidiaries --
Spence Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we
acquired in 1984; and Hoke Incorporated ("Hoke"), the stock of
which we acquired in 1998. Due to the nature of the products
supplied by these entities, the markets they serve and our
historical experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe
that asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect
on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of
Spence or Hoke, or the financial condition, consolidated results
of operations or liquidity of the Company.

CIRCOR International, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace and industrial markets. It has a global presence
and operates 24 manufacturing facilities, which are located in the
United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and
the People's Republic of China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Faced 230 Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, had 230 cases for which it was
potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at
September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012.

Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on
February 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of
Midwest Generation's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims
under the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale
Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation
agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for
50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and
related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a
sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with
future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. The
obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum
liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year
term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year
terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate);
pursuant to the automatic renewal provision, the supplemental
agreement has been extended until February 2013. There were
approximately 230 cases for which Midwest Generation was
potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at
September 30, 2012. Midwest Generation had recorded a liability of
$53 million at September 30, 2012 related to this contractual
indemnity, included in benefit plans and other long-term
liabilities on its consolidated balance sheets.

Midwest Generation sells wholesale electricity to markets in the
Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating capacity
of almost 5,480 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired power plants
in Illinois (5,172 MW); it also oversees the operation of the Fisk
and Waukegan on-site generating plants which have 305 MW of
capacity. Affiliate Edison Mission Marketing and Trading acts as a
conduit for Midwest Generation's wholesale energy activities.
Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison International unit
Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Inc. Can't Estimate Liability for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. can't estimate liability for asbestos claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2012.

On October 31, 2011, ITT Corporation ("ITT") completed the spin-
off of Xylem, formerly ITT's water equipment and services
businesses (the "Spin-off"). Effective as of 12:01 a.m., Eastern
time on October 31, 2011 (the "Distribution Date"), the common
stock of Xylem was distributed, on a pro rata basis, to ITT's
shareholders of record as of the close of business on October 17,
2011 (the "Record Date"). On the Distribution Date, each of the
shareholders of ITT received one share of Xylem common stock for
every one share of common stock of ITT held on the Record Date.

The Spin-off was completed pursuant to the Distribution Agreement,
dated as of October 25, 2011 (the "Distribution Agreement"), among
ITT, Exelis Inc. ("Exelis") and Xylem. After the Distribution
Date, ITT did not beneficially own any shares of Xylem common
stock and, following such date, financial results of Xylem have
not been consolidated in ITT's financial reporting.

The Company states: "While very few claims have been asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure, it is possible that additional
claims could be filed in the future. We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and, should such a claim
not be indemnifiable by ITT, we would defend ourselves vigorously.
Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, ITT will indemnify Xylem
for asbestos product liability matters, including settlements,
judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all pending and
future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's legacy
products. We believe ITT remains a substantial entity with
sufficient financial resources to honor its obligations to us.

"Although the ultimate outcome of any legal matter cannot be
predicted with certainty, based on present information, including
our assessment of the merits of the particular claims, we do not
expect that any asserted or unasserted legal claims or
proceedings, individually or in aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations, or
financial condition.

"As part of the Spin-off, ITT, Exelis and Xylem will indemnify
each of the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or
retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches
of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. ITT's
indemnification obligations include asserted and unasserted
asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the presence
or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products
manufactured, repaired or sold prior to the Distribution Date,
subject to limited exceptions with respect to certain employee
claims, or in the structure or material of any building or
facility, subject to exceptions with respect to employee claims
relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The indemnification
associated with pending and future asbestos claims does not
expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material matters
for which we will be indemnified by ITT or Exelis through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications."

Xylem Inc., formerly ITT WCO, Inc., is a provider of equipment and
service for water and wastewater applications with a portfolio of
products and services addressing the full cycle of water, from
collection, distribution and use to the return of water to the
environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Various PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend various asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as
co-defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have
filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges
to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing
and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all
pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the
final disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to
have a material adverse effect upon our financial position,
operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to
the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc is a provider of offshore contract drilling services to
the international oil and gas industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 18,341 Pending Claims End Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, as of September 30, 2012, had 18,341 pending
asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

In the United States, the Company has been named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits, the
plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.
The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.  Any component within a Company product that
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier.  Based on scientific and medical evidence, the Company
believes that any asbestos exposure arising from normal use of any
Company product never presented any harmful levels of airborne
asbestos exposure, and, moreover, the type of asbestos contained
in any component that was used in those products was protectively
encapsulated in other materials and is not associated with the
types of injuries alleged in the pending suits.  Finally, in most
of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation
against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York.  Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or
$25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

As of September 30, 2012, there are 18,341 pending asbestos
personal injury claims filed against the Company.  Of these cases,
17,845 are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York
County in New York State.  The other claims, totaling 496, are
filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in
certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those
complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New
York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed.
As of September 30, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 26,428 cases.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However,
there have been developments during the past several years, both
by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which
could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these
asbestos claims in those jurisdictions.  These developments
include procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage
requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow
specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of
damages before they can proceed with their claim.  An example is
the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court),
which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending
within New York County in the State of New York.  This Court
issued an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or
Inactive Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed
by plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition.  As a result of this order, the majority of the
asbestos cases filed against the Company in New York County have
been moved to the Inactive Docket until such time as the
plaintiffs can show that they have incurred a physical impairment.
As of September 30, 2012, the Company has been listed as a
defendant in 605 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York
County.  The Court's Order has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

Except with regard to the legal costs in a few limited,
exceptional cases, the Company's insurance carrier has paid all
legal and settlement costs and expenses to date related to the
Company's U.S. asbestos cases.  The Company has liability
insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that
the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to
substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be
incurred on these claims.

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases.  It is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and
proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury
litigation.  Despite this uncertainty, and although results of
operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely
affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings,
management believes that the ultimate outcome of these cases will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Harsco Corporation is a multinational provider of industrial
services and engineered products serving global industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had $5 Billion Gross Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., had $5,006 million gross and
$443 million net liability for unpaid asbestos claims and claims
adjustment expense at September 30, 2012, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims on insurance policies written many years ago
is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due
to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial
interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have
tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such
policies and in others have expanded theories of liability.

AIG's reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims
reflect a comprehensive ground-up analysis performed annually. In
the nine-month period ended September 30, 2012, AIG increased its
gross environmental reserves by $150 million and increased its net
environmental reserves by $75 million. This development is
primarily attributable to several large accounts which led to an
increase in the estimate of claims that have been incurred but not
reported.

AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating to
foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $142 million gross
and $115 million net reserves as of September 30, 2012. Similar
amounts were held at December 31, 2011.

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Continues to Defend Respirator Mask Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2012, 3M Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous respirator mask/asbestos
lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately
2,115 individual claimants compared to approximately 2,260
individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2011.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company
expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the
future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past.
Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a
greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company
has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of
the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in
2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth
case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of
plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict. The plaintiffs appealed but in February 2012 the
California Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal of the appeal.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company
and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in
the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its
complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's
compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with
occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages.
While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007,
the Court held a case management conference in March 2011, but no
further activity has occurred in the case since that conference.
No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company
believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this
time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss given the minimal activity in this case and
the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other
manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on
the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault
a jury allocates to each defendant if a case is ultimately tried.

              Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities
                    and Insurance Receivables

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the greater cost of resolving claims of persons
with more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other
malignancies, the Company increased its reserves during the first
nine months of 2012 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by
$66 million, $16 million of which occurred in the third quarter of
2012. As of September 30, 2012, the Company had reserves for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $135 million (excluding
Aearo reserves). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range
of amounts by which the liability may exceed the reserve the
Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted,
particularly with respect to the Company's respiratory products
that themselves did not contain any harmful materials, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$89 million. During the first nine months of 2012, the Company
increased its receivables for expected insurance recoveries by $39
million related to this litigation, $15 million of which occurred
in the third quarter of 2012.

As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served
with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its
insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. --
both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage
for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, pending in the
District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeks declaratory
judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the
allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the
various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company,
over 60 of the Company's insurers. This action is similar in
nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant
coverage, which ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme
Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.
The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names
some additional insurers and deletes others. A significant number
of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with 3M
regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. The case is
currently in the discovery phase. Trial is scheduled to begin in
the summer of 2013. During the first nine months of 2012, the
Company reached settlements with several insurers, including
Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co., that will
result in payments totaling approximately $81 million ($69 million
of which has been received as of September 30, 2012) to the
Company over the next two years.

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.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
It has several segments: Industrial and Transportation segment,
Health Care segment, Consumer and Office segment, Safety, Security
and Protection Services segment, Display and Graphics segment, and
Electro and Communications segment. The company also offers
electronic toll collection and parking management hardware and
software services. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is based in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Recorded $28MM Liability for Aearo Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company has recorded $28 million as the best estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo Technologies-related asbestos
and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of September 30, 2012, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, has recorded $28 million as the best estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor
Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the
number of years each company sold respiratory products under the
"AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is
further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and
Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as
Aearo pays to Cabot an annual fee of $400,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against,
asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for
respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995. Because the date
of manufacture for a particular respirator allegedly used in the
past is often difficult to determine, Aearo and Cabot have applied
the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or products
containing asbestos or silica prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
annual fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by
its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able
to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, (ix) the
outcome of pending insurance coverage litigation among certain
other members of the Payor Group and their respective insurers,
and/or (x) a determination that the interpretation of the
contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of
liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact
of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's
share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of
the developments were to occur, the actual amount of these
liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly
larger than the reserved amount.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the reserve the Company has established.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
It has several segments: Industrial and Transportation segment,
Health Care segment, Consumer and Office segment, Safety, Security
and Protection Services segment, Display and Graphics segment, and
Electro and Communications segment. The company also offers
electronic toll collection and parking management hardware and
software services.  3M Company was founded in 1902 and is based in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair's Units Had 1,900 PI Suits at Sept. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 29, 2012, there were approximately 1,900 asbestos-
related lawsuits pending against Pentair Ltd.'s subsidiaries,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2012.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of September 29, 2012, there were approximately 1,900 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,400 claims outstanding as of
September 29, 2012. This amount is not adjusted for claims that
are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect
defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately
reflect our current estimate of the number of viable claims made
against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed
responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In
addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending
against third parties for which we have provided an
indemnification.

"Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $68.2
million, $0.6 million, and $0.6 million as of September 29, 2012,
December, 31, 2011, and October 1, 2011, respectively, and is
recorded in "Other non-current liabilities" within our Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet for pending and future claims and
related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance
recoveries was $50.3 million at September 29, 2012, all of which
was acquired in the Merger, and is recorded in "Other" within our
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. We had no estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries as of December 31, 2011 and
October 1, 2011.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to third parties. Furthermore,
predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater
uncertainty in the latter portion of the projection period. Other
factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for
asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the
applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a
result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be
significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions
used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results."

Pentair Ltd. delivers products, services, and solutions for water
and other fluids, thermal management, and equipment protection in
the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-
Pacific region.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.84BB Net Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., had $1.84 billion net
asbestos reserves at September 30, 2012, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company completed its
annual ground-up asbestos reserve evaluation. As part of this
evaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domestic
insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability, as well as
assumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures for
both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance. Based on this
evaluation, the Company increased its net asbestos reserves by $48
million. The Company found estimates for individual cases changed
based upon the particular circumstances of such accounts. These
changes were case specific and not as a result of any underlying
change in the current environment. The Company experienced
moderate increases in claim severity, expense and costs associated
with litigating asbestos coverage matters, particularly against
certain smaller, more peripheral insureds. The Company also
experienced unfavorable development on certain of its assumed
reinsurance accounts driven largely by the same factors
experienced by the direct policyholders. The Company currently
expects to continue to perform an evaluation of its asbestos
liabilities annually.

A number of factors affect the variability of estimates for
asbestos and environmental reserves including assumptions with
respect to the frequency of claims, the average severity of those
claims settled with payment, the dismissal rate of claims with no
payment and the expense to indemnity ratio. The uncertainty with
respect to the underlying reserve assumptions for asbestos and
environmental adds a greater degree of variability to these
reserve estimates than reserve estimates for more traditional
exposures. While this variability is reflected in part in the size
of the range of reserves developed by the Company, that range may
still not be indicative of the potential variance between the
ultimate outcome and the recorded reserves. The recorded net
reserves as of September 30, 2012 of $2.14 billion ($1.84 billion
and $303 million for asbestos and environmental, respectively) is
within an estimated range, unadjusted for covariance, of $1.7
billion to $2.5 billion. The process of estimating asbestos and
environmental reserves remains subject to a wide variety of
uncertainties. The Company believes that its current asbestos and
environmental reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of
future developments could cause the Company to change its
estimates and ranges of its asbestos and environmental reserves,
and the effect of these changes could be material to the Company's
consolidated operating results, financial condition and liquidity.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance and financial services primarily
in the United States and Japan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax's Accrued Liability Was $66MM at Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos-related liability at
September 28, 2012, was $66,505,000, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2012.

The Company's fluid-handling subsidiaries had 22,361 unresolved
claims at September 28, 2012.

In addition to the asbestos litigation of its fluid-handling
subsidiaries, certain subsidiaries acquired in conjunction with
the Charter Acquisition have been named as defendants in asbestos
related actions in the U.S. These lawsuits have alleged that the
defendants were liable for acts of a former affiliate. The
defendants have contested these actions and, in most cases, have
obtained dismissals. The Company expects to continue to defend
successfully the actions brought against them.

During the first quarter of 2012, Colfax completed the acquisition
of Charter International plc.

Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial
manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and
fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to
customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid
Handling brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Ct. Affirms Jury Judgment in Suit v. Kaiser
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Rich, both in her individual capacity and as the personal
representative of her late husband's estate, appeals a final
judgment entered by the trial court after a jury found that the
defendants were not liable for injuries her husband, Fred Rich,
suffered as a result of contracting mesothelioma.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the former testimony against Rich was not properly
admitted.

In a decision dated Oct. 24, 2012, Associate Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth
District, affirmed the judgment after determining that the
additional issues raised lack merit.  The Court ruled that
testimony was properly admitted and that any error in admitting
any deposition was harmless and did not influence the jury.

The case is ABBEY RICH, individually and as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of FRED H. RICH, Appellant, v. KAISER
GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., individually
and as successor in interest to INTERNATIONAL TALC CO., and UNION
CARBIDE CORP., Appellees, No. 4D10-1176 (Fla., 4th Dist.).  A copy
of Associate Judge Rosenberg's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/dPIQWnfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah Limitations Statute Bars Claims v. Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Anderson filed a complaint in 2010 against various
defendants, including Eaton Corporation and General Electric
Company, alleging that he sustained asbestos-related lung injuries
as a result of his inhalation of asbestos fibers through his
occupational exposure to asbestos.  He was diagnosed with pleural
plaques and asbestosis on March 2008.  In 2011, he filed an
amended complaint adding certain defendants, including Cooper
Industries, LLC, and Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.  Plaintiff
filed claims for negligence, products liability, strict liability,
representations/warnings, fraud and deceit/negligent
misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting battery.

In an Oct. 24, 2012, Decision, Judge Ted Stewart of the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division,
denied the motions for summary judgment filed by Eaton and GE
holding that the Plaintiff's claim was timely filed.  Judge
Stewart, however, granted the motions for summary judgment filed
by Cooper and Kelly-Moore holding that the Plaintiff's claims were
barred by the three-year statute of limitations in Utah Code
Section 78B-2-117.

The case is AARON ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. EATON CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case 2:10-CV-905 TS (Utah).  A copy of Judge
Stewart's Decision is available at http://is.gd/RSP1Nzfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Stay of Plant Insulation's Plan Orders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, et al., -- Appellant Insurers --
moved for an emergency stay of an order issued by the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, denying their appeal from a bankruptcy court's
confirmation of Plant Insulation Company's restated amended plan
of reorganization and an order affirming the confirmation of the
plan.  The appellant insurers seek a stay of the orders for 30
days or until the Ninth Circuit rules on their yet-to-be filed
request for a stay pending appeal, whichever is longer.

District Court Judge Richard Seebog, in a decision dated Nov. 1,
2012, denied the emergency motion after determining that the
Appellant Insurers failed to establish that a stay is necessary to
prevent irreparable injury.

The case is FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellants,
v. PLANT INSULATION COMPANY, et al., Appellees, Case No. C 12-
01887-RS (N.D. Calif.).  A copy of Judge Seebog's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/69EDM4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Blocked From Prematurely Obtaining Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, Wayne Joseph St. Pierre, Sr., was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.  Immediately after, Mr. St. Pierre and his third
wife, Ms. Lawyer, entered into a "retainer agreement and contract
of employment" with the Roussel Firm, which provided for a 40%
contingency fee.  Mr. St. Pierre then filed an asbestos exposure
suit against multiple defendants.  By December that year, he died
from mesothelioma.  Following Mr. St. Pierre's death, Ms. Lawyer
and his three surviving children from his two prior marriages were
substituted as plaintiffs.  All four plaintiffs asserted claims
for survival and wrongful death damages.

An issue arose because the surviving spouse and the surviving
children retained separate counsel.  Ms. Lawyer continued her
attorney-client relationship with the Roussel Firm under the
Contingency Fee Agreement, while the St. Pierre Children retained
Martzell & Bickford, A.P.C.

Citing the involvement of separate counsel and the necessity to
engage in separate settlement negotiations with each group of
plaintiffs, Albert L. Bossier, Jr., and Melton Garrett, two of the
named defendants in the asbestos suit, filed a Motion for Order
Governing Allocation of Damages and Determination of Credits for
Settlements in Survival Action.  Messrs. Bossier and Garrett moved
for an order that any damages awarded in the survival action would
be divided equally among the four beneficiaries, one-fourth share
each.  Ms. Lawyer opposed that motion and contended that, as the
surviving spouse in community, she was entitled to receive a five-
eighths share of any damages and that the St. Pierre Children
should only receive one-eighth shares each.  Ms. Lawyer further
argued that the proposed order, providing for an equal division of
one-fourth share to each plaintiff, would interfere with the
Contingency Fee Agreement.  The interference, she contended, was
that it would reduce the amount of damages to be awarded to Ms.
Lawyer without taking into account the independent interest of the
Roussel Firm, as the attorney for Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Lawyer.

A trial court disagreed with Ms. Lawyer.  The trial court denied
ex parte Ms. Lawyer's motion for new trial on its ruling regarding
the allocation of damages.  Both the Court of Appeals of
Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied
Ms. Lawyer's writ application seeking review of the trial court's
ruling regarding the allocation damages.  Meanwhile, in November
2011, Ms. Lawyer and the Roussel Firm filed a petition for
intervention, which the trial court denied with prejudice.  The
Intervenors then appealed.

In an Oct. 24, 2012, opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's decision holding that the trial court did not err in
sustaining the exceptions of no cause and no right of action and
dismissing the petition for intervention.  The Court of Appeals
noted that although the St. Pierre Children's cause of action is
based on their father's death, there is no support for binding
them to the Contingency Fee Agreement their father entered into
with the Roussel Firm.

The Court of Appeals, however, pointed out that the Roussel Firm
has a right of action against Ms. Lawyer although the firm has no
basis at this time to intervene to assert that right of action for
two reasons: (1) the appropriate procedural vehicle for a law firm
to assert its rights in an action as to attorney's fee is by
filing a motion and (2) any claim by a firm for attorney's fees is
premature until there is a settlement or judgment.

The case is WAYNE JOSEPH ST. PIERRE, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN
SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL., No. 2012-CA-0545 (La. App. Ct.).  A
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/5q3XNUfrom
Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Panel Remands 14 Suits to Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated Oct. 23, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the case IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI), Nos. 3:11-2775EMC, 3:11-4327EMC,
3:11-4120EMC, MDL No. 875, remanded 14 asbestos cases to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California for resolution of all matters pending within the cases
except for punitive damages.  A copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/4QBeHTfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Stayed for Insufficient Facts
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Motion to Dismiss is filed in the case captioned EVELYN BURDICK
AND RONALD BURDICK, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF WALTER
BURDICK and EVELYN BURDICK, INDIVIDUALLY RECOGNIZED AS SURVIVING
SPOUSE v. AIR LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ET AL, C.A. No. PC
11-3431 (R.I. Super. Ct.), arising out of asbestos litigation
brought by Ms. Burdick, individually, and Evelyn and Ronald
Burdick as Co-Representatives of the Estate of Walter Burdick,
against numerous Defendants, among them The Hartford Steam Boiler
Inspection and Insurance Company and HSB Group, Inc.  The
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint
as it applies to the Defendants because it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under the laws of the State of
Pennsylvania.

In a Nov. 2, 2012, Decision, the Superior Court of Rhode Island,
Providence, SC, refused to rule on the Motion to Dismiss because
the Complaint avers insufficient facts to conduct a proper choice
of law analysis under Rhode Island's significant relationship
approach.  As such, the Court ruled that it is premature to
determine choice of law at this stage of the litigation.  The
Court then invited the parties to submit briefs on the choice of
law issues in the instant matter to develop the factual record
necessary for the Court to properly determine which law applies.
Until that time, the Court stayed its ruling on Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.

A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Iv6sqJfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Refuses to Amend 4-Year Old Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Powdered Metals, Inc., filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, to correct the
Memorandum and Order of February 10, 2009, pursuant to Rule 60(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claims in the case arose from insurance disputes between
insured companies and their insurers, including Defendant Mt.
McKinley.  The central issue was whether asbestos related injury
claims against Plaintiff companies, arising from products
manufactured by the Reardon Company, were subject to policy
coverage limits contained in policies issued by Defendant
insurers.  Plaintiff Republic Powdered moves to correct the
Memorandum and Order of the Court, dated February 10, 2009,
because Plaintiff contends the Court mistakenly awarded judgment
against all Plaintiffs whereas the intent of the Court was to
award judgment against one Plaintiff.

In a Nov. 5, 2012 order, District Judge Christopher A. Boyko
denied the Plaintiff's motion holding that the Court cannot
determine that the previously assigned judge's ruling, rendered
nearly four years ago, contains a clerical error.

Judge Boyko also held that altering the judgment substantively
alters the decision of the Court, which the Sixth Circuit has
expressly stated is improper under the Rule.  Mt. McKinley clearly
pled its Counterclaim pluraly against all Plaintiffs and the Court
rendered its decision in favor of Mt. McKinley and against all
Plaintiffs, the Court noted.  The Plaintiff has not cited the
Court to anything in the record demonstrating that it challenged
Mt. McKinley's counterclaim based on the theory that only RPM was
liable for the overpayment, Judge Boyko further noted.  Because no
such argument was made and since the judgment of the Court granted
Mt. McKinley the relief it sought against all Plaintiffs, the
Court found it has no basis to alter the decision of the previous
Judge.

The case is BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., Plaintiff, v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., ET AL., Defendant, Case No.
1:03CV1322 (N.D. Ohio).  A copy of Judge Boyko's Order is
available at http://is.gd/9EzOqWfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Affirms Ruling in SWU v. Celotex Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
bankruptcy court's order dismissing Southern Wesleyan University's
first amended and restated complaint.

SWU, on behalf of 36 members of the "National Universities Class
Action," filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court
alleging a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Asbestos Settlement Trust by those members of the Class who have
disputed asbestos-related property damage claims.  The bankruptcy
court dismissed SWU's complaint concluding that whether SWU was
the class representative in the 1992 federal litigation, SWU had
not been recognized in the bankruptcy court as the "class
representative" of the National Universities Class Action,
particularly regarding the filing of the class property damage
claim of the National Universities Class Action.  Additionally,
the bankruptcy court concluded that SWU lacked standing to
represent those members of the Class which have disputed property
damage claims because SWU did not allege, nor produce any
evidence, that it holds a disputed property damage claim.  The
district court, sitting in review of the bankruptcy court,
affirmed on the same grounds.

In affirming the bankruptcy court's order, the Eleventh Circuit
held that SWU did not allege in its Amended Complaint nor did it
produce any evidence in response to the Trust's challenge to SWU's
standing, that it had a disputed property damage claim.  Thus, the
Eleventh Circuit saw no error in the bankruptcy court's conclusion
that SWU "does not possess the same interest as members of the
National Universities Class Action with Disputed PD Claims, and
cannot represent the class members in this breach of trust
action."

The case is SOUTHERN WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, individually and as the
representative for the certified college class, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, FRANK ANDREWS, SHARON M.
MEADOWS, JAMES W. STEVENS, Defendants-Appellees, No. 11-13737
(11th Cir.).  A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's Decision dated
November 6, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/pPJWfwfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Denies Colleges' Appeal in Celotex Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan State University, et al., took an appeal from orders in a
bankruptcy court proceeding involving the Asbestos Settlement
Trust created in bankruptcy court in 1996 to pay asbestos mass
tort claims for both bodily injury and property damage against
Celotex Corporation and Carey Canada, Inc.  The Colleges filed an
adversary proceeding against the Trust seeking declaration that
their asbestos-related property damage claims are valid.  The
proceeding was dismissed without prejudice to the Colleges' right
to pursue damages claim in a new bankruptcy court proceeding.  The
Colleges then filed a motion for leave to sue the Trust for
damages in a different forum than the bankruptcy court.  The
bankruptcy court denied the motion holding that it had exclusive
jurisdiction over the breach of fiduciary duty and other related
claims against the Trust.  The Colleges appealed the bankruptcy
court's jurisdictional ruling to the district court, which denied
the Colleges' appeal.  Hence, this appeal.

In a Nov. 6, 2012, order, the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit, denied the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because neither the district court order nor the bankruptcy court
order is a final judgment or order and because neither order falls
within any of the exceptions to the Eleventh Circuit's final
judgment rule.

The case is MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, PRINCE GEORGES' COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF
CINCINNATI, FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY, CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 10-13641 (11th Cir.).  A copy of the Nov. 6 Order is
available at http://is.gd/EGhDBVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Ct. Allows Honeywell's Reconsideration Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Delsart filed a personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit,
individually and as special administrator of his father, Millard
Delsart's estate.  Millard had developed mesothelioma, allegedly
due to asbestos exposure in the workplace.

Delsart appealed an order granting defendant Honeywell
International, Inc.'s motion to reconsider.  That order disposed
of the entire matter in litigation by reversing an earlier order
granting Delsart's motions for leave to amend his complaint and to
reconsider a summary judgment order, which had originally disposed
of the entire matter.  In his appeal, Delsart contends the court
erroneously granted the second motion to reconsider.

In an Oct. 30, 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
District III, concluded that the circuit court properly exercised
its discretion in granting the second reconsideration motion, and
affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeals noted that Delsart apparently failed to act
sooner because he was mistaken about his legal status as
representative of the estate.  Moreover, the Court recognized that
the proposed amendment was sought nearly two years after the
original complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations
had run.  Delsart also did not file the amended complaint after
the initial decision allowing him to do so.  Instead, he filed the
amended complaint seven months later, after Honeywell moved for
reconsideration.

The case is ALAN J. DELSART, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MILLARD A. DELSART, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT, v. ALBANY FELT COMPANY, INC., A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY,
AZCO, INC., BUILDING SERVICE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC., CBS
CORPORATION, CRANE COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOODRICH
CORPORATION, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., INGERSOLL-RAND
COMPANY, PAPER CONVERTING MACHINE COMPANY, TAYLOR INSULATION
COMPANY, INC., GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION, ITT CORPORATION AND MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC.,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, Appeal No. 2011AP2556 (Wis. App. Ct.).  A
copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GYgpu1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Awarded Damages Due to Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITY OF DAYTON, Plaintiff, v. A.R.
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:11-cv-383,
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton,
awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the City after
finding A.R. Environmental's practices a breach of agreements
between A.R. and the City and a violation of controlling
environmental laws.

The case arises out of three contracts entered into between the
City and A.R. to perform abatement work (asbestos surveys and
remediation) and demolition activities on more than 40 properties
located in the City.  Under the contracts, A.R. was required to
comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations in
performing its work, including filing the correct paperwork with
the appropriate regulatory agencies, and obtaining demolition
permits from the City.  The evidence before the Court demonstrates
that A.R. failed to comply with these requirements with respect to
nearly all the properties.

Magistrate Judge Newwman held that when a defendant is in default,
the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint -- as they relate to
that defendant's liability -- are accepted as true, but the
allegations concerning the plaintiff's damages are not.  Thus, the
plaintiff must prove its damages by a preponderance of the
evidence.  The evidence introduced at the Court hearing -- all of
which is undisputed by A.R. -- demonstrates by a preponderance of
evidence, Magistrate Judge Newman noted.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Newman's Decision dated October 29,
2012, is available at http://is.gd/ZCgAZLfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Request for Billing Docs From CSX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia affirmed a magistrate
judge's order denying defendant's motion to compel production of
documents responsive to its fourth set of requests regarding CSX
Transportation, Inc.'s third amended complaint.

CSX filed a third amended complaint against Robert N. Peirce, Jr.,
Louis A. Raimond, Mark T. Coulter, and Ray Harron, M.D., alleging
that the lawyer defendants prosecuted fabricated asbestos claims
against CSX, including a claim filed on behalf of Earl Baylor.
The lawyer defendants filed counterclaims against CSX alleging
that, in light of a release that Baylor executed with a prior
claim, CSX committed fraud (1) when it alleged in its amended
complaint that it had sustained damages in defending the Baylor
asbestos claim; and (2) when it did not immediately produce the
release in response to a discovery request in this case, instead
of waiting until it obtained a disclosure authorization from
Baylor.  Earlier this year, the Court denied the lawyer
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and
CSX's motion to dismiss the counterclaims.

Pierce filed the motion to compel production of documents seeking
documents that relate to damages sought by CSX in the form of
legal fees incurred by CSX in the prosecution of the action.  A
magistrate court denied the motion to compel.  The lawyer
defendants objected to the order.

In an Oct. 29, 2012, memorandum, Judge Stamp held that it is not
necessary to address the subject at length because CSX will not be
compelled to produce the documents.  It is enough to note that the
magistrate judge previously determined that billing records are
not subject to attorney-client privilege.

The case is CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT N.
PEIRCE, JR., LOUIS A. RAIMOND, MARK T. COULTER, and RAY HARRON,
M.D., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:05CV202 (N.D. W.Va.).  A copy
of Judge Stamp's Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/hxe3nW
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Court Reverses Judgment Favoring
-------------------------------------------------------
Eloise E. Olsen, Individually and as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Billy W. Olsen, deceased, appeals from an Order
granting summary judgment to the defendant, Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company.  The plaintiff sued two other defendants,
Georgia Pacific, LLC and Union Carbide Corporation, but the
summary judgment order also contains an Order pursuant to 12
O.S.2011, Sec. 994(A).  The appeal proceeds under the procedures
of Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.36, 12 O.S.2011, ch. 15, app. 1.

In a mandate issued on Oct. 26, 2012, the Court of Civil Appeals
of Oklahoma, Division 4, reversed the Order granting summary
judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

The Court of Civil Appeals noted that the critical element is
whether the asbestos was an improvement to real property at the
time, for summary judgment purposes, the asbestos caused injury.
Mr. Olsen's exposure to asbestos occurred prior to installation of
the pipes being insulated.  Under the specific facts of the case,
Mr. Olsen's injury arose out of construction of items before they
became affixed to the real property, but not an improvement to
real property.

Section 109, according to the Court of Civil Appeals, does not bar
claims based upon theories of premises liability or negligence in
supplying the asbestos without warning.  Accordingly, the Court of
Civil Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in ruling that
Olsen's action was barred by Section 109.

The case is ELOISE E. OLSEN, individually and as Personal
Representative for the Estate of Billy W. Olsen, Deceased,
Plaintiff/Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA GAS and ELECTRIC CO.
Defendant/Appellee, and GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC; and UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, Defendants, No. 110104 (Okla. Civ. App. Ct).  A copy
of the Court of Civil Appeals' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/d3pGRbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Study Considers Logging at Libby's Forest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Associated Press, a report on how to deal with
35,000 acres of asbestos-laden forest on a mix of private and
public land in northwestern Montana suggests harvesting trees
could be profitable if debarking can safely remove the asbestos.

The 45-page study identifies a variety of ways to reclaim the
contaminated forest in the mountainous region surrounding the town
of Libby, the Missoulian reported (http://bit.ly/QR6Q9t) in a
story published Sunday, Nov. 18.

Lethal dust from the W.R. Grace & Co. plant and the company's
nearby mine once blanketed the town and surrounding forest, and
asbestos illnesses are still being diagnosed more than two decades
after the mine was shuttered.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has spent $370 million
removing soil and construction materials contaminated with
asbestos in the town of about 3,000 people near the Canadian
border, where an estimated 400 people to date have been killed by
asbestos exposure.  More than 1,700 have been sickened.

Officials have long known that the surrounding forest also is
contaminated, though residents in the area routinely cut trees for
firewood.  A previous study found that while bark is contaminated,
the wood inside the trees is not.

The recent report titled "Asbestos Remediation Plan for Forested
Areas near Libby, Montana," gives some guidelines as well as
challenges in how to deal with the contaminated forest.

"It's a pretty big deal," said Craig Rawlings, president and CEO
of the Forest Business Network.  "We're talking about 35,000
acres, and the EPA is probably going to expand that area
significantly."

The 35,000 acres, called Operational Unit 3, includes the mine
site.  Scientists with the EPA say the acreage likely is
surrounded by more forest contaminated with asbestos.

"Recently we have started investigating areas outside of OU3, and
we do know that it exists in the forested areas outside of that
unit," said Christina Progess, the EPA's Superfund project manager
in Libby.  "There are so many unknowns about the level of
contamination in the forests of Libby.  We don't know what levels
are out there or what activities would be below a level of
concern."

Of the forest surrounding Libby, experts estimate there are 600
harvestable trees per acre that would produce about 425 million
board feet.  Logging slash and bark would be treated with water
and sent to a permanent storage site or used as boiler fuel.  But
questions remain about that process.

Remedial logging, which would take 10 years, is just one possible
way to deal with the contaminated forest.

"We will develop a whole slew of options for cleaning up OU3, not
just logging," Progess said.  "Logging may end up being one of the
options, and therefore the report could be helpful."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Leader Pushes HB 380 to Pass Senate Floor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati.Com reports that as Senate president, Tom Niehaus is
the final arbiter of who in his Republican caucus sits on what
committee.  It's a power Senate presidents use to reward loyalty,
punish disloyalty and ensure favored bills pass through committee
to get to the floor of the Senate.

The New Richmond leader, whose term expires at the end of this
year, used that power last year, most notably to punish state Sen.
Bill Seitz, R-Green Township, after he spoke out against the
controversial Senate Bill 5, which limited collective bargaining
for public workers.  The bill was repealed by voters before it
could go into effect.

Now Niehaus has used that power again.  This time it's to ensure
another controversial bill passes the Senate -- House Bill 380,
which critics say will make it harder for workers exposed to
asbestos to file claims.

According to The Mesothelioma Center, a Florida-based outreach
organization for people with asbestos-related diseases and their
families, Ohio is one of the nation's most active states in the
area of asbestos litigation reform.  The state is considered the
leader in controlling the number of active asbestos cases in its
courts.  The state is ranked eighth for asbestos-related deaths.

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Louis R. Blessing Jr., R-Colerain
Township, told The Enquirer the legislation is aimed at protecting
trusts set up for asbestos victims from getting depleted by
victims seeking more than they're owed.

In 2004, lawmakers passed legislation that set stricter standards
about who can sue manufacturers and other businesses because of
asbestos exposure.  Pending asbestos cases in Cuyahoga County
alone went from a high of 46,384 in 2004 to 6,506 at the end of
2011, according to the latest figures from the Ohio Supreme Court.

Still, Blessing said, the current law allows people to collect
damages from multiple trusts for the same injury.

"It's costing companies that had only minimal, minimal involvement
with asbestos to file bankruptcies.  And Ohio is losing jobs,"
Blessing said.

HB 380 prevents someone from collecting more than they're owed for
their injury, he said.

If it becomes law, it would be the most strict in the country,
according to John Van Doorn, executive director of the Ohio
Association for Justice, which opposes the bill.

In May, two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee opposed
HB 380, which is backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  With the
three Democrats on the committee also opposed, that meant a 5-5
stalemate, stopping the bill.

Over the pre-election recess, Niehaus shuffled several committees
ostensibly to give new senators more experience in different
roles.  But Niehaus told The Enquirer he removed one senator from
the Judiciary Committee in part because of his opposition to the
asbestos bill.

"Five committees were affected," Niehaus said.  "Most of it had to
do with trying to get our newer members into vice chairmanship
positions," Niehaus said.

Opposition by Sen. Frank LaRose, R-Copley, "was not the only thing
that was considered," Niehaus said.

Opponents of HB 380 say the committee shuffling was a smokescreen
for making sure the legislation got enough votes to make it to the
Senate floor.

"There is no asbestos problem in Ohio," Van Doorn told The
Enquirer.  "There hasn't been a plaintiff verdict in Ohio in more
than four years.  It's a national strategy to enact state laws,
and Ohio is the first stepping stone."

Van Doorn lamented that new members of the Judiciary Committee
will be voting on HB 380 without the benefit of sitting through
committee hearings where both opponents and supporters testify.

Blessing was surprised when told the Senate appears to be moving
his bill.

"Good, I hope so," said Blessing, who is also term-limited.

Thomas Bevan, a lawyer from the Cleveland suburb of Boston Heights
who specializes in representing asbestos victims, said it's not a
given that even if the legislation reaches the Senate floor that
it will pass.

"We're not giving up," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North America's 1st Croat Church to be Demolished
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Nelson Jones of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that
asbestos is being removed from the former St. Nicholas Church in
preparation for demolition of the historic Troy Hill landmark,
which representatives of the city, the Catholic Diocese of
Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation met
recently to plan.

Diocese spokesman the Rev. Ronald Lengwin said the demolition has
not been scheduled because it is not known how long asbestos
removal will take: "It's not going to happen for a while."

When the church does come down, lane closures may result because
traffic on Route 28 is just a sidewalk away from the towering
brick structure.  PennDOT spokesman Jim Struzzi said the
demolition is unlikely to conflict with the state's highway
construction, but the city will be responsible for coordinating
traffic flow past the church during the tear-down.

The city granted the church historic status in 2001.  Three years
later, the parish in Millvale consolidated the Troy Hill
congregation and began fighting efforts to save the old structure.
PennDOT shifted its expansion of Route 28 to go around the church
in 2008.  At that point, the Preserve Croatian Heritage Foundation
had raised $60,000 to begin plans for the building's reuse as a
museum.

The foundation also paid to secure the building and make minor
repairs.

For years, preservationists went back and forth with the parish
over the church's future.  Parish representatives argued that the
vacant church was draining it of money that it needed for upkeep
of the Millvale church and that it was a safety hazard.

The preservation group contracted its own study that determined it
to be structurally sound and a feasibility study that indicated
the building could viably be used as an immigrant museum.

After several suitors bowed out of deals to buy the church, the
Northside Leadership Conference, in support of the preservation
group, offered $1 for it, pending a survey to determine whether
the hillside was stable.

Instead, the diocese sought a hardship provision in the city's
historic code that allows for demolition.  The Historic Review
Commission denied the request, in part considering they had an
offer that would relieve them of further expense, but they won in
Common Pleas Court last summer.

Judge Robert Colville ruled that $1 is not a reasonable return.
He cited previous case law in describing the church's historic
designation in 2001 as, in effect, "a taking" that left the church
hobbled by historic code demands.

The city dropped its appeal last month, its legal department
citing potential liability in a takings challenge by the parish,
and the demolition plans began.

Stained glass windows were removed last month and the asbestos
removal began shortly afterward.

"Our only role was to provide information to coordinate their
efforts with our plans," Mr. Struzzi said.  Asked whether PennDOT
may plan to widen the road with the church gone, he said, "At this
time we don't know."

City council President Darlene Harris said she has "tried to talk
to the church but it appears it is falling on deaf ears.  I am
thoroughly disgusted.  I just can't believe they would allow the
destruction of [the replacement for] the first Croatian church" in
North America.

The vacant church was at the heart of the first Croatian
congregation and replaced the original one, which burned down,
after the Millvale church was built.

"I asked them what they would want for the city to buy it, for the
URA to buy it and the diocese said it's not for sale," Ms. Harris
said.  "It's very unfortunate.  This is going to hurt historic
designations later on.  My heart goes out to the Croatian people.
We will lose not only an historic piece but an historic religious
property on the North Side."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bishop Allegedly Maneuvered Delay of Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sid Maher of The Australian reports that Julie Bishop has revealed
she was advised by two of the nation's most senior barristers --
including the current High Court Chief Justice -- on the asbestos
cases she has been accused by the government of attempting to
delay through legal maneuvers.

The Deputy Opposition Leader, on Nov. 18, also demanded an
official investigation into the disappearance of documents
relating to the union "slush fund" which Julia Gillard helped
establish 20 years ago.

Ms. Bishop said procedural advice for one asbestos case she worked
on as a lawyer was provided by Robert French QC, now the Chief
Justice of the High Court.  On two other asbestos test cases,
advice was provided by David Malcolm QC, who is a former chief
justice of the West Australian Supreme Court.

"At no time did I act other than in accordance with their (her
clients) instructions and on advice from some of the most senior
barristers in Western Australia," Ms. Bishop said.

Housing, Homelessness and Small Business Minister Brendan O'Connor
said Ms. Bishop's pursuit of the Australian Workers Union issue
and Julia Gillard's involvement in the establishment of the AWU
Workplace Reform Association for her then boyfriend was a "smear"
and Ms. Bishop had her own questions to answer.

"Clearly there's been some matters arising out of her role as a
lawyer at CSR where she used allegedly procedural tactics to deny
victims of asbestosis their day in court.

"Now, she wants to go around spending her entire time not
involving herself in foreign affairs as she's supposed to do as
shadow minister, but instead seek to smear the government and the
Prime Minister with unsubstantiated allegations, and I think
there's some questions that she should be answering as well," Mr.
O'Connor told the ABC's Insiders program.

Later he told The Australian: "Yes, these are questions for Ms.
Bishop alone.  Ms. Bishop is Deputy Opposition Leader, seeking to
make an issue of the past conduct of politicians in their legal
careers.  It's up to her to answer these questions for herself --
not sheet things home to others.  Ms. Bishop is responsible for
her own conduct as a solicitor."

Ms. Bishop vowed to continue pursuing the AWU matter.

The Prime Minister's role in helping set up the AWU Workplace
Reform Association for her then boyfriend, AWU official Bruce
Wilson, was not known outside law firm Slater & Gordon until three
months ago -- when a former equity partner of the firm released a
statement and secret transcript of a September 1995 interview with
Ms. Gillard.

Ms. Gillard has said she did not open a file on the establishment
of the fund.  She has denied any wrongdoing and insisted that
while she provided legal advice for the establishment of the
association, she was unaware of its workings.

Ms. Bishop said she had never done legal work without opening a
file at her law firm.

Ms. Bishop called on the West Australian government to investigate
why public documents relating to the AWU Workplace Reform
Association were missing from the official file held by the State
Records Office in Perth.

Ms. Bishop also said she would seek a police investigation into
why documents were missing relating to the fund from the Federal
Court registry in Brisbane if they were not located by the end of
the week.

"Unless these files are located very quickly, I'll be calling on
the police to launch an urgent investigation into these missing
files to avoid the further destruction of evidence which might
implicate a number of people in the AWU fraud scandal."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers Back Sheffield Council on Fibro Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Star (UK) reports that three quarters of Sheffield's schools
contain asbestos despite major rebuilding work -- but council
officials say there is no risk to pupils.

Most of the city's 17 secondary schools have now been rebuilt and
the toxic material removed.

But 116 of 154 schools in Sheffield in total -- some 75% --still
contain the cancer-causing substance, most of which are primary
schools.

Action plans have been drawn up for each school which has asbestos
to ensure that whenever any work is carried out -- even down to
fixing up new shelves -- checks are made to ensure the substance
will not be disturbed.

The material, used in previous years for insulation and for its
fire-resistant properties, is safe when untouched, but dangerous
if damaged.

Teaching unions have backed the council's position.

Toby Mallinson, joint divisional secretary of the National Union
of Teachers in Sheffield, said:  "It's accepted in health and
safety circles that given the volume of asbestos in old buildings,
that's the way it should be managed.

"We would have concerns if individual schools were not following
the procedures -- asbestos is not unsafe as long as it is stable
and doing the job it was installed for."

Sheffield Council's stance complies with the Government's new
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Coun Jackie Drayton, council's cabinet member for children, young
people and families, said:  "It's worrying for parents and carers
where issues of children's health are concerned, so I want to
stress that the safety of our school children is important to us
and we would never do anything to put them at risk.

"This is why we already have robust procedures in place to deal
with asbestos when it's found in any of our buildings."

The council said it has "regularly and proactively audited" all
its schools over time for the presence of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AEC and ADR Retains NSW Awardee for 2012 Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Creative relates that Renovation Roulette is Cabana
Boys' advertising campaign for asbestos awareness.  There is more,
though, to the campaign.  That's where Insight Communications
takes the spotlight.  The Asbestos Education Committee (AEC) and
Asbestos Diseases Research (ADR) retained Insight to conduct their
annual awareness week campaign, following the work it did in 2011.

Insight's 2011 campaign achieved significant state and national
media coverage and won the NSW Awards for Excellence in the Public
Relations Institute of Australia Industry Awards.  It has been
nominated, too, for the National Golden Target Award, held in
Melbourne as part of the World PR Forum.

While Cabana Boys did the consumer advertising creative, Insight
did the other 3/4 of the 2012 campaign, which includes the
website, a strategic media campaign, stakeholder engagement,
online marketing, a fund-raising component, multiple media events
and a purpose built model house called "Betty -- The ADRI House",
which will be launched on Sunday 25th of November.  Betty will
travel around Australia to educate the community about asbestos in
the home.

Insight will also be lighting the sails of the Sydney Opera House
blue for the Asbestos Education Committee, as a tribute to all
those who have lost their lives to asbestos while at the same
time, raising awareness of the dangers of asbestos when renovating
or maintaining homes.

Insight would like to correct the perception that Cabana Boys is
behind this year's Asbestos Awareness campaign.

They would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the
commercials actors who, with the exception of a few dollars to
cover their expenses, undertook to work on the project pro bono as
part of their contribution to the cause.  Those actors are Lindsay
Farris (father) who also did the voice-over work, Katherine
Shearer (mother), Ruby Thompson (daughter), and Toby Challenor
(son).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Top 2011 Product Liability Verdicts Named
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Lawyer, a legal newspaper published by American Lawyer
Media, has recognized Baron and Budd, a national mesothelioma law
firm, for achieving the two of the highest product liability
verdicts in 2011 in Texas.  Both of these verdicts were reached on
behalf of mesothelioma patients.  John Langdoc --
jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- mesothelioma lawyer and Baron and Budd
shareholder, led trial efforts in both cases.  Reached on behalf
of mesothelioma patients and their families, these verdicts help
continue Baron and Budd's dedication to mesothelioma patients.
The list of Top Texas Product Liability verdicts is compiled by
VerdictSearch, an independent company owned by American Lawyer
Media, and locally published through Texas Lawyer.

"We always work tirelessly on behalf of every one of our
mesothelioma clients" said John Langdoc of Baron and Budd.  "It is
great to see that the hard work and dedication to some of these
families resulted in two of the top Texas product liability
verdicts in 2011."

A Dallas jury awarded $9 million to the Henderson family in the
case Henderson v. Dow Chemical, which was chosen by VerdictSearch
as the highest 2011 Texas product liability verdict.  The case was
filed on behalf of Mr. Henderson, deceased, his wife and family.
John Langdoc and Alana Kalantzakis -- akalantzakis@baronbudd.com
-- mesothelioma lawyers at Baron and Budd represented the family
at trial.

The family of Mr. Gensler was awarded an $8.4 million mesothelioma
verdict, which was selected as the second largest product
liability verdict in 2011 in Texas.  This mesothelioma case was
filed on behalf of the late Mr. Gensler and his family This
mesothelioma verdict is believed to be the first asbestos cancer
verdict reached against Hercules, Inc. for asbestos exposure at
the Dow Chemical plant.  John Langdoc and Alana Kalantzakis,
mesothelioma attorneys represented the Genslers at the
mesothelioma trial.

Baron and Budd was one of the first law firms in the country to
successfully litigate a mesothelioma lawsuit and continues to
protect the rights mesothelioma patients and their families today.

Visit Baron and Budd's dedicated mesothelioma website,
Mesothelioma News or call 1.866.855.1229 to learn more about the
firm's mesothelioma lawsuit track record.

Names of cases referenced:

Tanya Elaine Henderson, Magdalena Adrienna Abutahoun individually
and as Trustee of the Estate of Robert Henderson and Za'Quia
Zanice Henderson v. The Dow Chemical Company No. 10-07003, Dallas
County District Court, 160th, TX.

John Edwards Gensler and Martha Ann Gensler personally and as
representative of the Estate of John Edwards Gensler, deceased v.
Hercules Inc. individually and as successor in interest to
Hercules Powder Company, successor in interest to Haveg
Industries, Inc., successor by merger to Haveg Corporation and the
"Haveg" asbestos liabilities and "Haveg" product line, No. DC10-
08454-D, Civil District Court of Dallas County, 68th, TX.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. --
http://baronandbudd.com/-- has a more than 30-year history of
"Protecting What's Right" for asbestos sufferers and their
families.  As one of the first law firms to successfully litigate
an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd continues to actively represent
veterans, industry workers and others who are suffering as a
result of exposure to asbestos.  Baron & Budd achieved the largest
mesothelioma verdict ever in the state of Texas, a $55 million
verdict for an asbestos sufferer and his family in El Paso, Texas.
Contact Baron and Budd at 1.866.855.1229 for additional
information on mesothelioma treatments, mesothelioma cancer
doctors and treatment centers and mesothelioma attorneys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rwanda Roofing Abatement Costs to Reach Rwf23 Bln
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Celestin Rutayisire at AllAfrica.com reports that the
overall total cost of removing and disposing of asbestos roofing
countrywide is estimated to cost Rwf 23 billion, according to
statistics from the Rwanda Housing Authority (RHA).

The exercise will cost individuals Rwf 13 billion while government
will foot the remaining Rwf 10 billion on its buildings.

Following a decision by the government in 2009 to phase out
asbestos roofing on both private and public buildings countrywide,
RHA reports that the progress has been painstakingly slow.

The decision was taken after reports indicated that prolonged
inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious illnesses
including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.

Two studies have so far been conducted to determine the actual
quantity of asbestos roofing in the country.

The first study by Experco, a Canadian company in 2010, put the
figure at 1,000,000 square meters while the second study by the
government came up with 1,308,259 square meters.

Besides supervising the exercise, RHA will ensure the safe
disposal of the materials and recommend suitable companies to
carry out the exercise.  So far, the housing body has trained 265
construction and environmental management related companies.

The Southern Province leads other provinces with the highest
concentration of asbestos roofing estimated at 415,903 square
meters.  Kigali City has 354,468 square meters, Eastern Province
224,954, Western Province with 213,626 and Northern Province with
99,308.

The distribution of ownership is divided into three categories;
Public category with a total of 571,928 square meters, Private-
Public category that includes missionary founded schools and
hospitals as well as public buildings with a total of 207,412
square meters and private category with 528,919 square meters.

According to the Housing Authority, the high concentration of
asbestos roofing is blamed on historic colonial settlement
patterns.

"The asbestos roofing materials were expensive compared to others.
They were preferred because they regulate heat and noise.  They
were believed to be durable.  That is why it was either used by
government or missionaries and few rich individuals and this is
why it will not be difficult for such individuals or organizations
to foot their replacement bills since most of them are well off,"
observed Frederic Bizimana, Acting coordinator of the project to
get rid of asbestos materials at RHA.

"We were tasked to have eradicated asbestos roofing materials by
June 2013.  While we do not meet the costs, it is possible that in
future, some cases may come up through relevant channels
justifying government intervention in case of those who
justifiably cannot pay," said Bizimana.

The exercise that was commissioned in April 23, 2012 by the
Premier Minister Pierre Damien Habumuremyi has so far removed
111,000 square meters of asbestos materials.

For safety reasons the government does not sanction individuals to
take any action without the approval of RHA much as the individual
meets all costs, including delivery to the dumping site to be
located in Kamonyi.

Nyamirambo School of the Deaf, which had a total of 2,000 square
meters of asbestos roofing, was unroofed by SM Construction
Enterprise.

The company's director, Claude Gakwaya, says the exercise is
affordable saying that it cost the school a total of Rwf 3,500 per
square meter.

Gakwaya however says the cost of the exercise varies with the
location and the height of the building, saying this could go as
high as Rwf 5,000 per square meter.

He says that it is important to comply with RHA's regulations to
bring down the cost.

"When you comply with RHA instructions, you are safe and the
exercise is not as costly as people have perceived it," explained
Gakwaya.

Bernadette Mukankusi, the school's administrative assistant,
echoes Gakwaya's sentiments saying there was need for proper
planning in carrying out the exercise.

Over 125 million people are exposed to asbestos and more than
107,000 people die each year from asbestos related diseases,
according to the World Health organization (WHO).

The incubation period of the disease is 15-40 years which
demonstrates slow manifestation, but once detected, the death
rates of the disease are between 50-100%.

This means that there is no effective medical treatment available.

Asbestos products were imported into the country from Burundi and
Belgium.  In Burundi, they were manufactured by a company known as
ETERNIT since 1954.  The company was closed down in 1989 amid
mounting anti asbestos campaigns, mainly in Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Activists Call for Fibro-Free Asia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paritta Wangkiat of The Bangkok Post reports that international
health activists have stepped up pressure on Thailand and other
Asian countries to ban the use of asbestos.

The Asian Ban Asbestos Network (Aban) issued a declaration at its
Nov. 20 meeting in Bangkok.

The delegates, who came from many Asian countries including India,
Bangladesh, Iran and Indonesia, agreed urgent steps must be taken
to make Asia an asbestos-free region.

Health experts say exposure to asbestos can cause serious diseases
such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

The declaration said Thailand is not doing its part to eliminate
the use of asbestos.

"It's unacceptable that while Japan and South Korea have
recognized the dire consequences of exposure to asbestos for human
health, Thailand, China, Indonesia and other countries have not,"
the declaration said.

Laurie Kazan-Allen, coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos
Secretariat (Ibas), said that up to 4 million tons of asbestos has
been used in Thailand in the past 60 years.

The UK banned asbestos in 1999, she said.

No ban has been issued in Thailand despite a resolution nearly two
years ago by the National Health Commission supporting such a
step, Ms. Kazan-Allen said.

The lives of workers and the public would remain in danger until a
ban is imposed.  "The asbestos industry manipulates the media and
the government by spreading false information [about the dangers
of asbestos]," Ms. Kazan-Allen said.

In April last year, the cabinet approved the National Health
Assembly's resolution to ban the use of asbestos.

However, state agencies, including the Ministry of Industry, which
is in charge of issuing asbestos use permits, has not made any
progress on the matter, said Adul Bandnukul, coordinator of the
Thailand Ban Asbestos Network.

The lack of information about asbestos use in Thailand is
preventing authorities from banning asbestos, Mr. Adul said.

"It's difficult to track down workers who have worked with
asbestos," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro In Old Storm Dump Add 80 Days Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
April M. Havens at gulflive.com reports that asbestos in a former
hurricane landfill has thrown a kink in the multimillion-dollar
overpass project at U.S. 90 and Industrial Road in east Jackson
County, supervisors learned on Nov. 19.

Supervisors approved a nearly $2.5 million change order for
Ellisville, Miss.-based Tanner Construction to continue excavating
and hauling debris from the old storm dumping area, which is just
north of Old Mobile Highway and east of Industrial Road.

There was more asbestos than originally expected, said Neel-
Schaffer's Shane Bergin, and the extra work will add about 80 days
to the contract.

The change order will be submitted to the Mississippi Development
Authority for final approval, a necessary step because Community
Development Block Grant funds are involved.

The large road project, funded through local, state and grant
funds, will connect Mississippi 63 to Miss. 611, bypassing U.S. 90
and the CSX railroad.

It will also widen Mississippi 611, or Industrial Road, to 5 lanes
up to the Gulf LNG Energy's liquefied natural gas facility.

The project is meant to make commutes more efficient through east
Jackson County's industrial corridor and boost safety at the
railroad crossing.

The first phase -- which includes roadwork along Miss. 63 from
Frederick Street south to Old Mobile Highway, realignment work,
and the overpass -- is under way now.  The second phase is to 5-
lane Industrial Road from Old Mobile Highway to the LNG facility.

Any cost overruns in the first phase will eat into the second
phase's funds, leaders said Monday, Nov. 19, but the Mississippi
Department of Transportation will be responsible for making up the
difference.

About $35 million has been set aside for the project, with the
first phase costing about $23 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Randwick Abatement Activity Stirs Up Resident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be alarmed if you see men walking around in what appear to
be space suits on construction sites -- it is a normal part of the
asbestos removal protocol, Randwick Council says, according to
Leesa Smith and Chris Walker of The Southern Courier.

But the sight of such space-suited men and confirmation from
Randwick Council that there was asbestos being removed from a site
opposite his Little Bay home was enough to spur Brett Sheridan
into action.

After being advised to keep the children indoors on windy days,
Mr. Sheridan said he felt he had to speak out about the lack of
notification to residents.

"Why are there no community and public warnings around the risks
and methods to reduce the risks listed anywhere in the area?" he
said.

A council spokesman said the work was being overseen by an EPA-
accredited site auditor and was being carried out by contractors
licensed by Work Cover.

"Council is satisfied that the remediation works are being
undertaken in accordance with the conditions of the development
consent and environmental conditions for the site," he said.

"The developer is using dust suppression measures, air monitoring
in accordance with NSW WorkCover requirements, safe work method
statements, risk assessments and procedures."

Meanwhile WorkCover responded last Tuesday, Nov. 13, to a
complaint from a southeast resident that asbestos was being mixed
up in the sand and loaded on to trucks at a construction site at
Maroubra.

But when the Courier followed up the complaint with WorkCover we
were told it had not been established that there was any asbestos
on the site.

In order to rule out any concerns the WorkCover inspector issued a
notice to the site controller to test for the presence of
asbestos.  The inspector will continue to monitor the site.

Anyone with concerns regarding the safety of work sites can
contact WorkCover on 13 10 50.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Expert Joins The Asbestos Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning this month, one of the nation's leading environmental
insurance experts has begun sharing his knowledge with students
attending The Asbestos Institute's Contractor Supervisor Initial
Course.  Brian Mcfarland, from Legends Environmental Insurance
Services, began his role as a monthly guest lecturer last week.

Mr. Mcfarland has over 15 years in the environmental industry and
is a well known insurance expert across the country.  During his
presentation, students learn about insurance and bonding issues as
it relates to the environmental and asbestos industries.

The monthly presentation by Mr. Mcfarland takes place at The
Asbestos Institute's training facility in Phoenix, Arizona.  The
Asbestos Institute is a complete training center, classroom, and
information resource dedicated to the asbestos, lead abatement and
environmental hazard control industries.

"It's a pleasure and an honor to share my knowledge of insurance
issues with the students at The Asbestos Institute," shared Mr.
Mcfarland.  "These students come from across the Southwest to
learn the latest EPA, OSHA and AHERA asbestos requirements.  The
course materials cover 18 topics and insurance and bonding issues
is a critical component for asbestos professionals."

Legends Environmental Insurance Services has been offering
insurance services since 1973 and has specialized in providing
environmental insurance programs for over 25 years.  Legends is
one of the largest specialty insurance providers that offers
insurance coverage to environmental professionals involved with
asbestos, lead, indoor air quality (IAQ), hazardous waste, USTs
and numerous other environmental industries across the United
States and Canada.

To learn more about Legends Environmental Insurance Services,
please visit http://www.Legends-enviro.com,call (800) 992-6999
ext 164 or email BrianM@Legends-enviro.com or
Bill@Legends-enviro.com

             About Legends Environmental Insurance

Legends Environmental Insurance Services, LLC, is nationally
recognized as an innovator in providing environmental and
restoration insurance programs.  The company has over 30 years
experience providing these services in all 50 states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test at Cwmcarn Shows Very High Airborne Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reports that a school that shut suddenly
last month after workmen spotted asbestos had airborne fibers ten
times over accepted levels, a report has found.

The 900-pupil Cwmcarn High School closed after a structural report
identified asbestos in the main block.

The Welsh government ordered all schools to report on asbestos
levels.

The survey into Cwmcarn revealed it "poses potential serious risk
to health" and should be demolished, as recommended by a previous
inspection.

The report by Santia Asbestos Management Limited said asbestos in
the roof void may have been blown around the building by the
heating system.

Ceiling tiles being disturbed by draughts, repairs to the
electrical circuit and even pupils scraping chairs and tables in
classrooms may have caused damage to asbestos boards, it
suggested.

The company said in the report: "We are of the opinion that it is
not feasible to continue operating the school in the current
condition based on the risks imposed on occupants."

The report said it would not be practical to refurbish the
building, removing all the asbestos, given other upgrades and
safety improvements that would be needed.

Special health clinics have been set up for parents and pupils of
the school, which was shut on Oct. 12.

Students are now being educated 12 miles away at Coleg Gwent's
Ebbw Vale campus for the rest of the school year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Awarded $6.8 MM Verdict v. Ford et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Placitella of MesotheliomaCareCenter.com Legal Blog cites
Joe Satterly and Justin Bosi for handing their client a $6.8
million mesothelioma asbestos verdict against Ford and others.

The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos both in the navy and while
doing many brake jobs during the time he owned a local gas
station.

The jury assessed 22% against Ford, 8% against GM and 8% against
Chrysler.  The jury also assessed 33% against the U.S. Navy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cost Halts Plan on Victoria's Schools With Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Millsom of ABC Gippsland News reports that the Victorian
Education Minister, Martin Dixon, says that work is being done
across the state to progressively remove and retire classrooms
containing asbestos.

However, he says that the cost of undertaking such an exercise is
high and will take some years to complete.

"Obviously the cost of removing every classroom that has asbestos
in it cannot be met in one year -- that would be a massive cost,"
he says.

The Minister says that schools do have the option to refuse to use
a building that contains asbestos if they so wish.

But he notes that to some schools this would not be a viable
option.

"We trust local school communities to make the informed decisions.
If they don't want a relocatable that's their decision and we
would welcome that but they would have to make that decision in
consultation with their community."

"The school community might say that we're confident we can
monitor dangerous situations and we know what to do if any
exposure is found," he says.

The Victorian Government has confirmed that a portable building to
be received by the Sale Specialist School as a staff
administration facility does contain asbestos.

Concerns that the building contained asbestos were first raised by
Sale Specialist School Council President, Elaine Fiddelaers on ABC
Gippsland's mornings program recently.

Caroline Clancy is the Vice President of the Primary Sector at the
Australian Education Union and says a number of Victorian school
buildings contain asbestos.

"I wouldn't be able to give an accurate figure but I certainly
would say that there are an overwhelming number that contain
asbestos," she says.

Ms. Clancy says the unstable nature of the substance can make it
difficult to manage, particularly in schools.

She says that the government should remove all buildings
containing asbestos from schools.

"From our point of view we believe that there shouldn't be any
asbestos in our schools and in fact the government should
undertake a prioritized removal of asbestos".

The Chief Executive Officer of Gippsland Asbestos Related Disease
Support, Vicki Hamilton, supports this saying the education
department has a responsibility to remove the portables containing
the substance.

"It's not good enough.  They know the stuff is dangerous," she
says.

Schools are required to have asbestos management plans in which
buildings containing asbestos are identified but Ms. Clancy says
that accidents unfortunately do sometimes happen.

"Schools are very busy places and quite often this area [asbestos
management] could be a lower priority compared to education," she
says.

"The reality is that while it's there it's being maintained and
monitored, but the ultimate thing is that it does need to be
removed because no matter how vigilant the schools are, there's
still the possibility of an accident."

The Australian Education Union is awaiting a response from the
Premier, after writing to him earlier this year urging him to
conduct an audit of asbestos containing materials in all education
facilities.

Ms. Clancy says educating the community about asbestos should be a
higher priority.

She says every person that comes into a school containing asbestos
should be aware of where it is.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glendowie Incident Forces Auckland Council Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Abadia of Aukland Now reports that soil contaminated with
asbestos in a suburban park near a primary school has forced
Auckland Council to review its practices.

The parks department says it will not accept fill from private
properties in the near future.

Glendowie resident John Butcher was alarmed to see large areas of
Glendowie Park cordoned off on Nov. 10 while the soil was being
tested for asbestos.

The fenced-off area is 30 meters from the front gate of Glendowie
Primary School, which his children attend.

According to Auckland Council, about 80 cubic meters of topsoil
was trucked to the park from a private property on Oct. 24 and 25.

It was leveled for landscaping on Oct. 25, Auckland Council local
and sports parks manager Mark Bowater said.

But Butcher recalls the dirt pile being at the park for at least
three to four days before it was leveled.

Independent public health physician Dr. Francesca Kelly visited
the park last Thursday, Nov. 15.

She said initial sampling indicated occasional chunks of building
material in the top soil which had a presence of chrysotile (white
asbestos).

"There is minimal risk of fibers being inhaled where materials are
damp or have been contained."

Kelly says even if a child played directly on the affected area,
the amount of inhalable fiber would be too low to present a
significant health risk.

Council workers visited Glendowie Primary School to ensure staff
were aware of the situation, and said they would keep the
community informed.

Butcher was relieved by the results but questioned why there were
no safeguards in place to prevent it from happening.

"Why wasn't the soil tested before it was deposited in a park?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Ruins of Fire-Razed Former Convent
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eoin English of The Irish Examiner reports that asbestos has been
found in the ruins of a former convent gutted by fire.

KPMG, which has responsibility for the Good Shepherd site on the
northside of Cork city, confirmed the discovery Tuesday, Nov. 20.

A spokesman said KPMG representatives met with its building
advisers and city council officials on Monday, Nov. 19, and walked
the entire site to inspect the boundaries.

"During this walk they came across two out-buildings on the
southern side of the site.  These outbuildings have asbestos
roofs," KPMG said in a statement.

It was agreed to use hoarding to immediately block access to these
buildings.

"Long term, either the building can be demolished, in which case
the asbestos will have to be removed from site or a maintenance
procedure can be put in place to ensure access to the buildings is
prevented," the spokesman said.

"In the short term, the council is happy access is being blocked
off and that the matter will be dealt with in greater detail in
the scope of works document to be submitted.

"The council have also expressed their satisfaction to date with
the works which have been carried out to make the site safe since
the fire occurred."

The Good Shepherd Convent operated a Magdalene Laundry and
orphanage on the Sunday's Well site from 1874 until late 1977.

The buildings have lain derelict since a serious fire in 2003.

The site was bought in 2005 by a developer who secured planning
permission to develop apartments but the project stalled.

In May 2010, the site was seized by Ulster Bank which appointed
KPMG as receivers.

Fire broke out in the main Victorian-era building last Tuesday
morning (Nov. 13).

Fire fighters and forensic experts said the fire had all the
characteristics of a fire that had been burning for several hours
before they arrived on scene just after 7.30am.

Gardai, who believe the fire was started deliberately, are still
investigating the matter.

KPMG has appointed an engineering firm and architects with
expertise in conservation, to draw up proposals for how the
unstable building will be made safe and secured.

Given the building's protected status, any proposals will have to
be agreed by City Hall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agco Corp., 66 Others Face Meso-Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Sutton
couple is suing 67 companies they claim are responsible for a
mesothelioma diagnosis.

Camden David Hudkins performed automotive mechanic work while
working for Cantrell Motors Ford in Weirton and performed
residential construction work while employed at Yeonas Development
Company in Fairfax, Va., according to a complaint filed Nov. 14 in
Kanawha Circuit Court.

Hudkins claims he also worked as a laborer/helper at Weirton Steel
Mill and performed maintenance and repair work on trucks and
equipment for Hudkins' Timber in Sutton.

Due to asbestos exposure, Hudkins was diagnosed with asbestos-
related mesothelioma, according to the suit.

Hudkins claims while employed in his various occupations, he was
exposed to and did inhale asbestos dust and other dust from
products of the defendants, which caused his mesothelioma.

The defendants failed to warn Hudkins of the dangers of asbestos
when they knew or should have known that exposure would cause
disease and injury, according to the suit, and the defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care to warn him of the dangers of
being exposed to the products.

Hudkins claims the defendant also failed to inform him of what
would be safe and sufficient apparel for a person who was exposed
to or used asbestos products and failed to inform him of what
would be safe, sufficient and proper protective equipment and
appliances when using or being exposed to asbestos-containing
products.

As a direction and proximate result of the defendants' negligence,
Hudkins suffered and will continue to suffer damages for medical
treatment, drugs and other unknown remedial medical measures;
great pain of the body and mind; embarrassment and inconvenience;
loss of earning capacity; loss of enjoyment of life; and
shortening of his life expectancy, according to the suit.

Hudkins and his wife, Loretta Sharon Hudkins, are seeking a jury
trial to resolve all issues involved.  They are being represented
by David P. Chervenick, Bruce E. Mattock, Leif J. Ocheltree and
Scott S. Segal.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 67 companies named as defendants in the suit are A.O. Smith
Corporation; Agco Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic Corp.; Allied
Glove Corp.; American Optical Corporation; Aurora Pump Co.; Beazer
East, Inc.; Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc.; Cameron International
Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Copes Vulcan,
Inc.; Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.; Dana Companies, LLC; Deere
& Company; Dravo Corp.; Eichleay Corp.; F.B. Wright Co.; Fairmont
Supply Company; Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust; FMC
Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foseco, Inc.; the Gage Company;
Gardner Denver, Inc.; General Refractories Company; Georgia-
Pacific, LLC; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Grinnell, LLC; Hinchliffe &
Keener, Inc.; Honeywell International, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.;
Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll Rand Company; Insul
Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; I.U. North America, Inc.; M.S.
Jacobs & Associates, Inc.; Mallinckrodt, LLC; McCarls, Inc.;
McJunkin Redman Corp.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Mine
Safety Appliances Company; Minnotte Contracting Corp.; Navistar,
Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Pfizer, Inc.; Power Piping Co.;
Premier Refractories, Inc.; Reading Crane; Riley Power, Inc.; RT
Vanderbilt Company, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.;
Safety First Industries, Inc.; the Sager Corp.; Spirax Sarco,
Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Taco, Inc.; Tasco
Insulation, Inc.; Trane US, Inc.; Union Carbide Corporation;
Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps, LLC; Washington Group
International; the William Powell Company; Yarway Corporation; and
Zurn Industries, LLC.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-2268.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Firm Fined EUR10K for School Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Madden of The Galway Independent (Ireland) reports that a
Loughrea company has been fined EUR10,000 for causing asbestos
contamination at a Galway school.

The fine was handed down to Hodgins Architectural Facades Ltd by
Judge Gerard Griffin in the Galway Circuit Court, after the case
arose as the result of contamination during works to remove and
replace of windows at Scoil Chuimsitheach Chiarain in Carraroe.

When work commenced in November 2009, it was observed that an
asbestos board was located behind the window panels.  Work was
halted while a work procedure was put in place, which required the
panels to be lifted out intact, double wrapped in plastic and
secured in a lockable container on site.

Work then resumed and the majority of the windows were removed in
this manner, except one that was inaccessible due to a scaffold.
Once the scaffold was removed, this final window was removed.
However, the existing lock on the container had been replaced by
this time and the operative did not have a key.  The asbestos
panel was placed on a trestle adjacent to the locked container and
not secured inside it.

Some ten days later, a painter that was subcontracted by Hodgins
Architectural Facades Ltd took the asbestos board to level the
ground beneath his ladder, mistaking it for plasterboard.  The
panel was broken up and contaminated the rear schoolyard with
asbestos.

After the judgement, Chief Executive of the Health and Safety
Authority Martin O'Halloran said that asbestos removal and
disposal must be done in a careful and competent manner.

"Usually, asbestos is detected when maintenance work is being
carried out on older buildings.  Once asbestos has been
identified, it should be removed by trained competent personnel
and disposed of in a safe manner.  In this case, the failures
posed a significant risk to the health of persons exposed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Raises Concern on Cwmcarn Report
-----------------------------------------------------
Ruth Mansfield of The South Wale Argus reports that councillors
remained tight-lipped at a Valleys authority Nov. 20, as they were
presented with a report on asbestos at Cwmcarn High School.

There was no debate at the full Caerphilly council meeting at its
headquarters in Penallta.

And a report read out to the meeting from the Health and Safety
Executive said that body had concerns over the interpretation of
the report by specialist firm Santia Asbestos Management Limited
which recommended knocking down the building which was closed down
in October and said there was a "serious risk" of exposure to
asbestos at the school.

The Argus reported Nov. 20 that the Santia report said that there
was evidence of widespread contamination within the ceiling voids
at the school building and that ten times the accepted airborne
fiber levels were evident when some of the heaters are used.

The more than 900 pupils are currently being taught at the former
Coleg Gwent site in Ebbw Vale.

In a statement read out at the meeting by deputy chief executive
Nigel Barnett on behalf of the HSE, it was said that the HSE had
concerns the report had been misinterpreted.

The HSE stated that it had been found that there was no specific
asbestos incident which gave rise to the closure of the school but
that the council had acted appropriately in closing the school.

The HSE statement also said that none of the air samples exceeded
the limit of 0.01 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter.

As the statement was read out there were groans from the public
gallery.

The HSE said that due to continuing investigations at the school,
it was unable to comment further.

Mayor of Caerphilly Cllr Gaynor Oliver said: "I hope that a lot of
the anxiety has been taken away."  This was met by more groaning
from the public gallery.

Councillors voted in favor of additional investigations being
carried out at the school to establish facts including the full
extent of materials within the school building, the degree of
damage and the extent and spread of asbestos fiber contamination.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grant Aids Philadelphians From Long Fibro History
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that in a
recent press release, the Perelman School of Medicine of the
University of Pennsylvania announced the receipt of a National
Institutes of Health grant that will assist them in designing an
educational program to help the residents who live in the
Philadelphia suburb of Ambler, an area that was long the site of a
busy asbestos factory.

The press release highlights the specifics of the grant, which is
being presented to the Center of Excellent in Environmental
Toxicology at the university's school of medicine.  The $1.2
million grant will be used to develop a program based on the
communities' history of asbestos products manufacturing and
resulting asbestos exposure.

Asbestos manufacturing in West and South Ambler began back in the
1880s and continued until the 1970s.  As a result, both former and
current residents face a number of health threats related to the
toxic mineral, including the potential development of the cancer
known as mesothelioma.  As a matter of fact, state records from
the Department of Health show that there has been a marked
increase in cases of mesothelioma in the Ambler area as compared
to other parts of the state.  Grant recipients hope that they can
shed some light in regards to this increase and perhaps better
understand the health risks to current residents and possible
remedies as well, the press release notes.

"We know there is an existing health risk, but that's just one
piece of the problem; these communities suffered great social and
economic consequences when the asbestos factory closed, and today,
they are still trying to recover from that loss," said Frances K.
Barg, Ph.D., associate professor of Family Medicine and Community
Health, and principal investigator for the project.  "Our hope is
that this program will help residents to better understand the
history of their community through the eyes of those who lived
here, while giving them an opportunity to help create a healthier,
safer neighborhood."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Degraded Fibro Remain Littered at Howden Reserve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Killick of The Mercury (Australia) reports that hundreds of
pieces of highly degraded asbestos material are scattered
throughout a popular Hobart recreational area.

The Peter Murrell Reserve at Howden is littered with broken pieces
of the deadly building product apparently dumped there by
unethical renovators.

Among the scattered refuse is blue asbestos, considered the most
dangerous to human health.

Despite being reported to authorities two months ago and after an
apparent clean-up effort, hundreds of pieces of asbestos remain on
the ground in the park.

Asbestos was commonly used as a building material in the post-war
era before being progressively banned from the 1980s.  Inhalation
of even small amounts of its tiny fibers can cause the fatal
condition mesothelioma years after exposure.

Builder Scott Cordwell said he was horrified to find asbestos
throughout the reserve.

"I just live around the corner and I walk my dogs around there,"
he said.  "I went up there and I noticed a lot of it kicking
around.  This stuff is broken down and weathered and it's quite a
risk . . . if you pick it up it just disintegrates."

There are no warning signs or barriers preventing members of the
public from coming into contact with the material.

Parks and Wildlife Service general manager Peter Mooney said the
organization had received reports of asbestos in the reserve from
Workplace Standards Tasmania and Kingborough Council on Oct. 16.

"A sample of the asbestos was collected.  This was tested and
confirmed to be asbestos," he said.

"PWS staff then removed and disposed of a small amount of material
on Oct. 23 according to the proper process for disposal of
asbestos."

"Given that dumping of material such as this in bushland close to
urban areas was a very common occurrence for many years, there may
be other small deposits at the reserve.

"PWS will continue to remove this material as it is found and as
it is reported by members of the public."

The revelation comes on the day the Asbestos Free Tasmania
Foundation launches the Tasmanian Parliamentary Interest Group on
Asbestos.

AFTF spokeswoman Susan Wallace said she was concerned that
asbestos might be present in the reserve and an investigation and
clean-up was urgently needed.

"If it's lying around like that it should be a matter of
priority," she said.  "They need to get an appropriately trained
person in there to get some samples and do some testing and as a
matter of urgency they need to organize a clean-up.  Any asbestos
that is releasing fibers into the air poses a health risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Concern Clinics for Cwmcarn Students Held
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Davies of BBC News Wales reports that health concern
clinics have been held for the pupils of Cwmcarn High School where
high levels of asbestos were found.

There were no health tests available at Risca rugby club but
advice was given on any risks posed.

On Nov. 20, a report said the school poses a potential health risk
and the building should be demolished.

The 900-pupil school closed suddenly last month after a structural
report identified asbestos in the main block.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASTM Holds "Asbestos Laboratory Issues" 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ASTM International 2013 Michael E. Beard Conference: Asbestos
Laboratory Issues, will be held Jan. 31 to Feb, 1, 2013, at the
Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront, Jacksonville, Fla.

Sponsored by ASTM International Committee D22 on Air Quality, the
conference will be held in conjunction with the winter standards
development meetings of the committee.

The ASTM Johnson Asbestos Conferences have been a major
contributor to the advancement and understanding of asbestos in a
number of areas including monitoring technology.  This meeting is
a two-day set of presentations on asbestos topics of interest to
those who work in laboratories, those who use laboratory
analytical data, and those who need to understand how to interpret
asbestos analytical results.

The meeting will follow the policies established for the Johnson
Conferences to encourage the presentation of the most recent work
in the field and to allow open and frank discussion of new ideas
and possible interpretation of the data.  The conference will be
divided into four sessions:

     1. Analysis of Soil, Vermiculite, Talc and Other Media
     2. Quality Assurance, Training and Interlaboratory Studies
     3. Issues Between the Laboratory and Field Operations
     4. Interaction between the Labs and NVLAP, Auditors and
        Government Agencies

Online registration opens approximately eight weeks before the
symposium and closes Jan. 23, 2013.  The attendance fee for ASTM
members and presenters is $310 for online registration and $335
for onsite registration.  The fee for non-ASTM members is $335
online and $360 onsite.  There is no attendance fee for
presenters, session chairs and students with a valid ID.

For additional information and online registration, visit
http://www.astm.org/MEETINGS/COMMIT/d22conf0113.htm

Additional technical information is available from conference co-
chairmen Jim Millette, MVA Scientific Consultants, Duluth, Ga.
(phone: 770-662-8509; jmillette@mvainc.com ); Jim Webber, New York
State Department of Health, Albany, N.Y. (phone: 518-474-0009;
webber@wadsworth.org ); Larry Pierce, Fiberquant Inc., Phoenix,
Ariz. (phone: 602-276-6139; lspierce@fiberquant.com ); and Owen
Crankshaw, RTI International, Durham, N.C. (phone: 919-541-7470;
osc@rti.org ).

ASTM International is one of the largest international standards
development and delivery systems in the world.  ASTM International
meets the World Trade Organization (WTO) principles for the
development of international standards:  coherence, consensus,
development dimension, effectiveness, impartiality, openness,
relevance and transparency.  ASTM standards are accepted and used
in research and development, product testing, quality systems and
commercial transactions.

ASTM Staff Contact: Hannah Sparks, Phone: 610-832-9677;
hsparks@astm.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Circuit Vacates Rule, Sacks Expert Testimony
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Bass of Legal Newsline reports that a three-judge panel of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
vacated a district court's judgment and remanded for a new trial
in an asbestos case because the court failed to make relevance and
reliability determinations regarding expert testimony.

The plaintiff, Henry Barabin, worked at the Crown-Zellerbach paper
mill from 1968-1984, and he says he was exposed to dryer felts
containing asbestos during part of his employment.  The felts were
provided by AstenJohnson, Inc., and Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc.

In November 2006, Barabin was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

During the trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik allowed an expert
for Barabin to testify without holding a Daubert hearing to
determine whether the expert, Dr. Cohen, was reliable.

After a jury trial, Barabin and his wife were awarded more than $9
million dollars.  The defendants filed a motion for a new trial
on, among other things, the admission of expert testimony.

The district court declined to order a new trial and the
defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

"In its role as gatekeeper, the district court determines the
relevance and reliability of expert testimony and its subsequent
admission or exclusion," Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson wrote for the
Court.

"Daubert provided the . . . factors for consideration in assessing
the reliability of proffered expert testimony," the Judge
explained, referring to the test adopted by the federal court
system and named after the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,
Inc. (1993).

"Unfortunately, because no Daubert hearing was conducted as
requested, the district court failed to assess the scientific
methodologies, reasoning, or principles Dr. Cohen applied.  None
of the Daubert factors was considered.  Instead, the court allowed
the parties to submit the experts' unfiltered testimony to the
jury."

Having determined that the district court had committed error, the
Court turned to the remedy -- "Under our precedent, the district
court's decision to allow presentation of the expert testimony to
the jury without making any gateway determinations regarding
relevance and reliability constituted an abuse of discretion
requiring a new trial."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Closure of Motocross Track Hits Local Businesses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ward of The Macquarie Port News (Australia) reports that the
closure of the Port Macquarie Hastings Motorcycle track has
impacted local business.

Rock Motorcycles has noticed a slowdown in business since the
closure last month.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has shut down the Hastings Valley
Motocross Track as naturally occurring asbestos has been found
present in the vicinity in serpentine rock.

Spare parts manager Shaun Borham said he had noticed a definite
downturn.

"It has been much quieter," he admitted.  "It hasn't been a
massive amount but it has been enough to notice."

He said after any event held at the track there would be an
increase in customers.

"During club days, and any race events really, we would get quite
a few people in," he said.  "For anything from tyres to broken
bits and pieces needing to be fixed."

A rider himself, Mr. Borham said he frequented the track once or
twice a month and was a club champion in previous years.  He said
he thought the closure may have been heavy handed but conceded at
the same time it was important to keep riders and the public safe.

"I don't know the full story so it's hard for me to say but I
don't think it needed to be shut down," he said.  "It's going to
affect kids the most that don't have their licenses so they can't
just throw their bike on the back of a ute and go for a ride
somewhere else.

"They [the club] have precautions in place anyway to stop dust,
like watering the track.  All the riders prefer it when it's
watered anyway, no one wants to ride through dust, and it's much
better for the spectators."

Wauchope's Mud 'n' Tar Motorcycles owner Rod Mulvey also said he
had noticed a downturn in business thanks to the closure but
admitted he could see the reasoning behind the ban.

"It all comes down to that council are afraid of litigation in 20
years time," he said.  "But it really is ridiculous, I mean, where
do you draw the line with this sort of thing?

"If they're going to shut down the track, well, really, they need
to shut down the whole of Port Macquarie because it's all over the
place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ayrshire Gives GBP155K Job to Notorious Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Wilson of The Ayrshire Post reports that a safety firm were
given a contract to test council-houses for asbestos -- just
months after being prosecuted for failing to remove the
potentially lethal substance on one of their own sites.

Exova (UK) Limited won the tender to test homes across South
Ayrshire.

But the Post can reveal the same company admitted months earlier
to three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations Act.

Despite a fine and heavy criticism from the Health and Safety
Executive, bosses at South Ayrshire still handed the firm a
contract worth GBP155,000.

Now they insist that they had no idea about Exova's brush with the
law -- even though a simple Google search would have revealed the
stark truth.

Exova were sacked less than a month into their stint with the
council following "anomalies" in their surveys.  But council
bosses say they acted in good faith to employ the firm after the
due diligence process was performed by Scotland Excel, an outside
body, who screen companies for local authorities.

The agency's asbestos tender requires firms such as Exova to meet
strict criteria on safety and the latest legislation.

But the firm, who were blasted by the HSE during their court
appearance in April, were not flagged up as a potential risk.

They were fined GBP36,000 for failing to remove damaged asbestos
at one of their own sites.

After the case at Newcastle Magistrates Court, HSE inspector
Andrew Woodhall, said Exova "needlessly and inexplicably chose to
put their employees at risk."

But those warnings apparently didn't reach the agency, who provide
councils including South Ayrshire with key contract advice.

A spokesman for Scotland Excel said: "To ensure that suppliers
continue to meet requirements of the framework, Scotland Excel has
implemented a program which reviews contract compliance and
performance at regular intervals.

"In the case of the asbestos services framework, reviews had been
scheduled annually for the first calendar quarter of the year so
we had not yet become aware of the prosecution of one of the
framework suppliers by the Health & Safety Executive in April
2012.

"As a result of recent developments, we are now reviewing matters
with the supplier and are taking steps to ensure such information
is identified more promptly in future."

But those assurances have come too late for South Ayrshire bosses,
who have been forced to employ a new asbestos contractor.

The council's corporate resources chief, David Alexander, said:
"Our primary concern has always been the health and wellbeing of
our employees and our tenants and we took immediate steps to
employ an alternative provider to resurvey the properties that had
been surveyed by Exova."

Now many within council headquarters are starting to demand
answers.

Former housing spokesman Douglas Campbell, said: "Regardless of
the information provided by Scotland Excel, it is still the
council's responsibility to ensure that contractors can do the job
for which they tender.

"Clearly this company has slipped through the net and it has now
given the council a major problem in terms of costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Kills Retired Hampshire Lorry Driver
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Daily Echo reports that a retired lorry driver from
Hampshire died from asbestosis just weeks after becoming a great-
grandfather for the first time.

Peter Weir, from Swaythling, died in June this year, after being
admitted to Southampton General Hospital.

Southampton Coroner's Court heard that the 79-year-old, who moved
from Northern Ireland in 1955, had become housebound having
suffered from various illnesses.

A post-mortem examination revealed the main cause of death was
pneumonia, caused by asbestosis, as a result of exposure to
asbestos when he worked as a pipe lagger, at Fawley Refinery, for
just a year during the 1950s.

Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death by industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialist Says Fibro in Schools Is "No Surprise"
------------------------------------------------------------------
A specialist industrial disease lawyer has said that the closure
of a Welsh high school after ten times more than acceptable levels
of asbestos were found comes as no surprise, adding that the
hidden danger of asbestos in our schools has been known for years.

Bridget Collier, head of the Industrial Disease team at Fentons
Personal Injury Solicitors LLP and a specialist in asbestos
claims, said that the shock closure of the 900-strong Cwmcarn High
School was potentially just the tip of the iceberg.

"The Cwmcarn case does not come as any great surprise, as we have
known for years that asbestos was widely used in schools,
typically for fireproofing and insulation," said Bridget.  "But
the dangerously high levels of asbestos found in that particular
school have thrust it under the spotlight."

Reports over the last few weeks have detailed how workmen
discovered airborne asbestos fibers that were ten times acceptable
levels in the main block, leading to Cwmcarn High School being
closed suddenly last month.  Now a further specialist report has
described the levels of asbestos in the school as posing
'potential serious risk to health', advising that it should be
demolished.

"Since the closure we have received numerous calls from former
pupils and staff at the school, as well as those from many others,
who suspect they may have been exposed to asbestos," said Bridget.
"It is believed that as many as 70% of schools built before 2000
will have asbestos in them, and that wherever maintenance, repair
or new construction has taken place, there is potentially some
risk that needs to be managed.

"In this case, the specialist asbestos management company's report
suggests that ceiling tiles being disturbed by draughts, repairs
to the electrical circuit and even pupils scraping chairs and
tables in classrooms may have caused damage to asbestos boards,"
said Bridget.  "It also said that asbestos in the roof void may
have been blown around the building by the heating system."

Following the school's closure, pupils are now being educated at
Coleg Gwent's Ebbw Vale campus 12 miles away, and will remain
there for the rest of the school year.

"Whilst asbestos is a truly horrible material, and this latest
incident has served to again highlight the danger of asbestos in
schools, it should also be noted that asbestos that is still in
good condition and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed does not
pose any immediate significant health risks, as long as it is
properly managed," said Bridget.

"Certainly most teachers and pupils are unlikely to be at risk in
the course of their normal day-to-day activities," she said.
"Whilst we are aware of some cases involving teachers who have
developed asbestos-related illnesses after being exposed, those
most at risk are tradespeople and contractors brought in to do
maintenance or repair work who are more likely disturb asbestos-
containing materials.  We deal with a number of cases every year
where workers -- including builders, joiners, plumbers and
electricians -- have developed an asbestos-related disease because
of the work they did in school buildings many years ago.

"It can take between 15 and 60 years after being exposed to
asbestos before any related disease becomes apparent," said
Bridget.  "Many people who are diagnosed often came into contact
with asbestos several years ago and didn't even realize.  It is
only when the symptoms begin to take hold that they recognize the
devastating effect working with asbestos has had on them."

Bridget, who for many years has seen first-hand the impact
asbestos-related illness has on its victims, said asbestos fibers
are invisible to the naked eye.  "When inhaled, these tiny
indestructible fibers lodge inside the body and can remain latent
without symptoms for many years before causing a number of
cancers, including mesothelioma," she said.

Bridget said the most common places asbestos can be found in
schools include the 'lagging' used as insulation on pipes and
boilers; the sprayed-on asbestos used for insulation, fire
protection and partitioning; insulation boards; some ceiling
tiles; floor tiles; roofing and guttering; and textured coatings.

"There is a common misconception that asbestos is a thing of the
past," added Bridget, "but asbestos was used in thousands of
buildings throughout the twentieth century," she said.
"Astonishingly, asbestos was still being used in some cement
products up until as recently as 1999.

"The idea that the prevalence of asbestos in schools has suddenly
been 'exposed' by the Cwmcarn issue is simply not correct," she
said.  "As the number of calls we receive from people who develop
asbestos-related illnesses each year goes to attest, the
unfortunate truth is that asbestos has been around for a long time
and continues to claim far too many victims."

How can Fentons Solicitors help?

Fentons has a specialist department experienced in handling claims
for victims of industrial diseases including asbestos-related
conditions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentenced Health Violator Files for Pauper Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Sohn of The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that a man
who chose the cheap way to tear down an old textile mill in East
Chattanooga and exposed a neighborhood to asbestos will be allowed
to appeal his four-year sentence on the taxpayers' dime -- at
least for now.

Don Fillers, while awaiting trial on federal charges of violating
asbestos regulations, transferred his Missionary Ridge home and 40
other properties to his wife, court documents show.

Now Fillers claims he can't afford to pay for an attorney, so the
lawyer that he still owes more than $20,000 now has become his
court-appointed lawyer, according to documents.

On Nov. 13, Fillers filed an affidavit seeking pauper status and
an appointed attorney.

He said his 2009 income of $4,000 a month from Chattanooga
Hardwood Co. stopped that year, and properties purchased for
nearly $2.5 million and assessed for taxes at $742,534 have
outstanding loans totaling $18.5 million.

The properties were transferred from Don Fillers to his wife,
Jackie Fillers, on May 19, 2010.

On Nov. 19, U.S. District Court Magistrate William Carter granted
Fillers pauper status with this caveat:

"[The] defendant could at a later date be required to repay any
cost to the government for providing counsel, filing fees or
expenses for the appeal of the case if it was later determined he
had the funds to hire his own lawyer."

Carter's order notes that "The Guide to Judiciary Policy" dictates
that doubts as to a person's eligibility for pauper status "should
be resolved in the person's favor" and erroneous determinations of
eligibility "may be corrected at a later time."

Fillers' attorney, Leslie Cory, could not be reached for comment.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Morris, the prosecutor in the
case, declined to comment.

But in court documents he wrote in response to Fillers' request:
"Upon information and belief, the United States avers that
defendant Fillers has substantial assets, including rental
properties, with which to continue to retain his counsel."

The ruling, even if temporary, has raised questions.

Former state environmental regulator April Eidson was critical
this week of Fillers' request.

"He's trying to portray himself as in need of public assistance,"
she said.  "But there also is the question of this property and
others being cleaned up" at least in part with public money.

"It needs to be looked at further," said Eidson, a member of a
watchdog group known as Little Chicago Watch.

When asbestos was discovered lying on the ground around the former
Standard-Coosa-Thatcher plant on Watkins Street in East
Chattanooga, local and federal regulators ordered emergency
procedures for cleanup, including a tanker to spray water
continuously around the site.

At sentencing, Judge Curtis Collier assessed fines and restitution
against Fillers and two co-defendants.

Collier ordered each defendant and Fillers' Watkins Street Co.,
which managed the site, to pay $27,899 in restitution to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Chattanooga Department of Public
Works and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control
Bureau.

Collier also fined Fillers $20,000 and fined the Watkins Street
Co. $30,000.

Collier ordered Fillers' demolition contractor, James Mathis, to
serve 20 months in federal prison and gave employee David Wood 18
months in prison.

He denied Fillers' bid to remain free on bond pending the appeal.
The three men began serving their sentences Nov. 16.

Once a common material used for insulation and pipe wraps,
asbestos is a substance the U.S. EPA says causes lung cancer,
mesothelioma and asbestosis when its fibers are crumbled or
pulverized.  EPA has determined there is no safe level of exposure
to the airborne fibers.

Between August 2004 and December 2005, demolition created
asbestos-containing dust that blew throughout the area of 17th
Street between Watkins and Dodds avenues, across the street from
homes and businesses and near a day care center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Karen Banton Raises Awareness Week
---------------------------------------------------
David Killick of The Mercury (Australia) reports that asbestos
would continue to kill Australians for decades to come and there
was a need for a major campaign to raise awareness of the risk
posed by the deadly material, the widow of campaigner Bernie
Banton said on Nov. 22.

The material still lurks in an estimated three million homes.

Karen Banton visited Hobart on Nov. 22 for the launch of a multi-
party group on asbestos and to launch Asbestos Awareness Week in
the state.

Ms. Banton said by 2020 more Australians will have died from
asbestos-related diseases than were killed in World War 1 and
another wave of casualties from the disease was expected as home
renovators were exposed.

Five years after her husband died from asbestosis and
mesothelioma, Karen Banton said there was still an urgent need to
raise awareness about the risks asbestos continued to pose for
Australians.

"We have a long way to go on asbestos awareness and education,"
Ms. Banton said.

"It's pretty scary, even among tradespeople.

"More often than not they haven't had sufficient training and
unfortunately Australians still have a 'she'll be right' attitude.
We need a change of attitude from 'she'll be right'.

"There's so much more we can do to prevent more people from coming
down with these horrible diseases."

She urged people to use asbestos awareness week as an opportunity
to learn more about the risks and to identify whether there was
any asbestos in their homes.

Workplace Relations Minister David O'Byrne launched the
Parliamentary Group on Asbestos and Asbestos-related Diseases with
his Liberal counterpart Jeremy Rockliff and Tim Morris from the
Greens.

The illegal dumping of asbestos around the state was highlighted
in a Mercury report that revealed large quantities of the material
in a Hobart reserve.

Asbestos Free Tasmania chief executive Susan Wallace on Nov. 22,
welcomed the formation of the parliamentary working group.

"We have seen a lot of good work from this Parliament on issues
around asbestos compensation," she said.

"But we need to develop more effective measures to stop people
breathing in asbestos fibers in the first place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADRI Launches Campaign on Awareness Week
---------------------------------------------------------
The Narromine News reports that Asbestos Awareness Week -- Nov. 26
to 30, 2012 -- The Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI)
will launch a week-long campaign to raise awareness of the dangers
of working with asbestos when renovating or maintaining homes.

With as many as one in three Australian homes containing asbestos,
during Asbestos Awareness Week and particularly in the lead-up to
the Christmas period when people often undertake home maintenance
and renovations in preparation for the holiday season, the
campaign aims to educate handymen, women and homeowners, and their
children about the risks of being exposed to asbestos fibres.

There are legal and safety requirements for the management of
asbestos.

Licensed asbestos removalists have specialist knowledge about
different types and forms of asbestos including how to safely
handle and remove asbestos material.

Visit http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/to find out about
regulations and obligations regarding asbestos removal.

Shires' Association of NSW president Ray Donald said: "The LGSA
see Asbestos Awareness Week and the associated online resources as
a big step in the right direction for raising awareness of this
very important issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cuts Full Day's Work In Inverell Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green of The Inverell Times (Australia) reports that
Inverell's recycling plant was closed down on Nov. 22 afternoon
after asbestos was found in a truckload of supposedly recyclable
material.

The old fibro was detected as it came through the plant on the
conveyor where workers sort materials.

No one knew how much fibro was in the truckload and workers were
quickly evacuated from their workplaces while steps were taken to
get rid of the threat.

Manager Carl Irwin said the plant has lost a full day's
production.

"It's old fibro and it's gone right through the system, we have
450 bins that could also be contaminated," Carl said.

"The whole lot will need to be buried now.

"Perhaps whoever did this could be very ill informed about
asbestos, I don't know; but whoever it was should have dealt with
it the right way."

The recycling plant is run by Northaven Ltd.  An employee of
Northaven, Wayne Giles, was the first to spot the contamination.

"We were lucky to have had Wayne here at the time, he holds all
the relevant tickets and when he saw it he came down to me and we
closed everything down," Carl said.

"We've only found the bits we can see.  We've been wanting to do
random inspections and this is the reason why."

Wayne was less than impressed with the find.

"It's not good, very bad, deadly," he said.

"This is carelessness.  Someone just didn't want to pay the dump
fee to get rid of it.  They're not worried about people's safety."

Unfortunately this sort of thing has been going on for some time;
any of the workers will tell you about it.

They sort what you put in your recycle bin by hand; no other way
to do it.

They wear gloves of course but imagine the danger an infected
syringe poses to them.

A sharp needle has no trouble penetrating work gloves.  Then there
is stuff that is just plain disgusting.

Sharon Bright is a worker who has lately had to cope with other
people's thoughtlessness.

"On a day to day basis we get dirty nappies, car parts, a video
camera came through today, bed-linen, pillows, toys, electrical
stuff . . . " Sharon said.

"We get sharps through . . . It's not safe for me or the other
employees.

"People know what they can and can't put in their bins, but they
still go and do it anyway because they're too lazy to put it in
their rubbish bins."

Peter Munn is also a Northaven worker who said there is a lot in
the bins that shouldn't be there.

"We've been getting dead animals, animal skins, a lot of rubbish,
grass clippings and a lot of nappies, syringes," Peter said.

"We sort through the rubbish with our gloves on, but you don't
know what's underneath paper or plastic when you stick your hand
down there, you could have a syringe or something stick in your
hand . . . you've just got to be so careful and have your eyes on
the ball at all time."

Peter said he would like to see people come and actually see how
they work and what comes through the system here and how it's
done.

"We're throwing away a lot of stuff because of the rubbish that's
in it, if people were a bit more careful about recycling we could
recycle a lot more," Peter said.

An open day is planned for January.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso-Widow Honored Member of the British Empire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beaming on the steps of Buckingham Palace, Chris Knighton holds
the MBE which would make her late husband proud, relates Joanne
Butcher of The Evening Chronicle (UK).

Chris lost husband Mick to asbestos cancer in 2001 and, since
then, she has dedicated her life to charity work to make sure he
didn't die in vain.

Over the last 10 years, the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research
Fund, based in Wallsend, North Tyneside, has raised more than
GBP1m for research and supported hundreds of people.

Chris was made a Member of the British Empire (MBE) for services
to mesothelioma research in the Queen's Birthday Honors' List.

She and daughter Vicki McAvoy travelled to London last Friday,
Nov. 16, to officially receive the honor at Buckingham Palace.

"It was a lovely day," said Chris, 65.  "It was incredibly
humbling and nerve-wracking, but also very emotional remembering
all the reasons I was there.  The Queen asked me about the
charity.  She knew about asbestos and the dangers, and said I had
made a difference."

Chris' charity work started at home and has graduated to an office
with the British Lung Foundation (BLF).

Also this year, Chris opened the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Bank
UK, in association with the BLF, the first dedicated mesothelioma
tissue bank in the country.  The bank is designed to help
scientists complete ground-breaking work into the condition with
the hope of one day finding new treatments or a cure.

"Mick would have been very, very proud of me getting the MBE,"
Chris added.  "But it is hard enough for me to get my head around
it, so I think he would have wondered what on Earth was going on.

"When I think back to when Mick died and how dreadful it was, this
is something I would never, ever have imagined.  It is quite
amazing."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquiry Urged Over Waltham School Abatement Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Binns of The Waltham Forest Guardian reports that rules
designed to ensure councils get value for taxpayers' money were
broken twice during the hiring of contractors to deal with
asbestos at a school, it has emerged.

The council has already come under criticism from parents after
the toxic fiber was discovered at the former Warwick School for
Boys site in Brooke Road, Walthamstow, just weeks before hundreds
of children from St Mary's Primary were due to be relocated there
in September.

Three classes and 18 staff from St Mary's had already moved in to
Brooke Road in September 2011 and an investigation is reportedly
underway into whether any children were exposed.

Now it has emerged that two companies were paid to do asbestos-
related work at the site in the summer without quotes from other
firms being gathered first, so the contracts were never put "out
to tender" to ensure best value.

Risk management firm GBNS was paid GBP52,425, while Pectel was
contracted to do asbestos removal work worth GBP39,100.  The
company was later paid a further GBP38,100 without any tendering.

GBNS was given a further GBP37,250 after alternative quotes were
finally sought.

Campaigner Nick Tiratsoo, who helped uncover a string of council
failures to comply with contract rules designed to prevent fraud
over cash earmarked for disadvantaged residents, said he was
"astonished" by the revelations.

The figures are from a report into the issue by the council's
Audit & Governance Committee.  It said that GBNS was brought in
immediately to help contain the Brooke Road site when the asbestos
was identified.

The report states that the urgency of the situation justified the
immediate involvement of GBNS, but it was wrong for the firm to
then be given additional work without any tendering process or a
formal waiver of the rules.

The work was commissioned by NPS London (NPSL), a firm part-owned
by the council to manage its buildings.

It has now agreed to write to all staff reminding them that they
must comply with the council's procurement rules in future.

The Audit & Governance Committee's report said what happened was
"unacceptable."  Mr. Tiratsoo said:  "The revelations about Brooke
Rd become ever more astonishing.  Key documentation charting
asbestos contamination goes unread.

"Romanian construction workers are put in considerable danger.  An
'independent' report [commissioned by NPSL] turns out to be
produced by a company part-owned by the council, which features
the council's chief executive Martin Esom and Cllr Mark Rusling as
directors.

"And now we discover procurement rules relating to work on the
site are ignored.  Surely its time for the local MP, Stella
Creasy, to intervene and demand a public inquiry?"

The Guardian has approached Ms. Creasy for a response.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Italy Needs to Remove Fibro From 40,000 Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gazzetta del Sud (Venice) reports that Italian Environment
Minister Corrado Clini on Thursday, Nov. 22, said the eurozone's
third-largest economy is facing difficulties in sourcing funds
necessary to clean up some 40,000 asbestos sites in the nation.

Clini said Italy had an "asbestos heritage", adding the government
had identified about 40,000 sites with asbestos of which some 400
were high risk locations.  "There is a financial resources issue,
on the one hand," Clini said.  "And there are also the problems
relating to responsibility.  In most cases we are in the presence
of situations where it is difficult to determine in retrospect who
is responsible, who needs to pay."

"It is a complex situation", he added.  Earlier this year, Italy's
health ministry published a review of Italy's asbestos situation,
evaluating there were some 34,148 potentially dangerous locations
in the nation.  The "Quaderni del Ministero della Salute"
September review singled out some 373 sites as top priority ones,
adding that the total could rise to as high as 500 due to
incomplete reviews of the regions of Sicily and Calabria.

"I will talk about the work we have been doing for years, about
the geographical overviews of locations, and the cleanup process
of asbestos sites," Clini said with reference to his address at an
asbestos conference in Venice.  "The cleanup plans are going
forward, they have been approved, and the responsibility of
planning them is mainly in the hands of the regions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor MP Insists Fibro Roof by MCCAA Is Not Safe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Malta Today reports that Labor MP Helena Dalli insisted that an
asbestos roof in a building adjacent to the Malta Competition and
Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA) was not safe as claimed by
consumer affairs minister Jason Azzopardi and the MCCAA.

The MP stressed that the roof structure including the bolts are
corroded and added that "The steel corrosion affect anything which
is in contact with it, including the asbestos."

Azzopardi and the MCCAA are insisting that an examination
conducted on an asbestos roof in a building adjacent to its
offices -- currently the subject of internal disquiet among
employees -- had recorded airborne asbestos fiber levels that were
less than the limits imposed at law.

The MCCAA is insisting that its offices are not in danger from a
nearby corroding asbestos roof and that its terrace and window
areas adjacent to the building are not at risk of asbestos fibers.

A summary of the risk analysis report was presented to the
representation of the General Workers Union and members of the
health and safety committee.  The GWU were however never presented
with a full copy of the report but were simply briefed.

Dalli explained that the expert engaged by the authority pointed
out the corroded bolts and roof.

"The expert himself had expressed concern about the corroded bolts
which tie down the asbestos roof and the roof structure, so much
so that he pointed out that the problem can only be resolved by
the owner of the building who has the authority to remove the
roof," Dalli said.

The MP asked "why did the expert underline the fact that no
authority or entity in Malta has the authority to oblige the owner
to remove the roof, if the roof is safe?"

She added that Azzopardi should "act immediately" if he has the
employees' health at heart.  "The minister should also declare
whether the government carried out thorough studies to ensure that
the premises were safe before signing the lease agreement," the MP
said.

The 10-year lease the government signed for Mizzi House in October
2011, with Mizzi Estates Limited stipulating that the government
will pay EUR300,000 per annum for the first two years rising to
EUR427,000 in 2021.

Over the 10-year period, the government will be paying EUR3.55
million to lease the main building and an additional EUR207,500 to
lease the garage.

Mizzi House belongs to the Mizzi Organization, which holds various
business interests including automotive; tourism and leisure;
manufacturing; services; real estate and mechanical and
engineering contracting.

Before entering the political scene, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi
was the company lawyer of the Mizzi Organization, for whom he also
served as Group Chairman between 1989 and 1997.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Polk City Council Approves Pipeline Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bouffard of The Ledger (Polk City) reports that residents of
the Railroad Heights area should have their new water line by
early next year now that the City Council has approved the final
piece of the project.

Council on Nov. 12 unanimously approved an $11,045 amendment for
engineering services to replace a concrete pipeline made with
asbestos.  The city got a $650,000 federal Community Development
Block Grant to finance the project.

Commonly used in construction as recently as the 1970s, asbestos
is banned in the U.S. because it has been proven to cause cancer
and lung diseases.

City officials were not aware of the asbestos pipeline when they
approved the project earlier this year, City Manager Patricia
Jackson said.

It was discovered during construction.

The asbestos pipe probably had been laid in the 1960s, well before
the federal ban, said Gerald Hartman, vice president at the
Orlando-based engineering firm GAI Consultants, Polk City's
utilities consultant.

Construction records do not reflect that a concrete-asbestos pipe
was used.

The $11,045 will finance engineering services to replace the line,
she said, and the additional construction cost is estimated at
$74,309.

The water line project is coming in well under the $650,000 grant,
so federal money will cover the entire replacement cost, Jackson
said.

In other business, the council approved a 10-year agreement with
Polk County to provide firefighting services in the city.

Polk City previously had an open-ended agreement with the county
for firefighting services, Jackson said, but a new state law
earlier this year limited such agreements to 10 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADFA Head Takes on Risks in DIY Renovation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that television home
renovation shows have fuelled a do-it-yourself craze that
campaigners fear will lead to the next wave of asbestos victims --
many of whom will be women.

The president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia,
Barry Robson, says shows like The Block, The Renovators and Better
Homes and Gardens have been embraced by women who have taken up
DIY renovation with a gusto.

But in the process, many have unwittingly become exposed to
potentially deadly, mesothelioma-causing asbestos fibers present
in just about all homes built before 1987.

"Unfortunately we're heading for a third wave of victims and their
families because home renovation is getting so big," Mr. Robson
told AAP at the launch of a nationwide awareness campaign on
Sunday, Nov. 25.

"An unfortunate by product of this is the increase in the number
of women now presenting with meso."

Cases of mesothelioma in this group are expected to spike over the
next 40 years, he said.

Renovation shows had a moral obligation to include "substantial
warnings", Mr. Robson said.

"They have not only fuelled (the DIY craze) but where they've let
down the public is not having warnings," he said.

Mesothelioma has previously been associated with asbestos miners,
manufacturers or tradespeople, but the new campaign aims to focus
on the dangers of home renovations by informing people where
asbestos can be found in their houses.

As part of the campaign, organizers have created a portable
replica home which will embark on a nationwide tour, demonstrating
where asbestos can be found.

Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-related
diseases in the world and has been ranked among the top consumers
of asbestos cement products per capita, the Asbestos Diseases
Research Institute says.

The institute on Monday night (Nov. 26) is to hold a candlelight
vigil for the victims of asbestos, with the sails of the Sydney
Opera House to be illuminated blue.

WorkCover operations director Peter Dunphy said it was important
to provide home renovators with information.

"Looking at exposure to asbestos we're looking at the people who
are most likely to have the potential to be exposed to asbestos
now, and that would be tradespeople and people who are doing home
renovations."

Mr. Dunphy said WorkCover was working closely with renovation
shows to provide more information about asbestos.

"What we're finding is that they're doing that now," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD Kills Former Cleaner From Bridport
-------------------------------------------------------
The Dorset Echo reports that a former cleaner from Bridport who
worked in a civic hall in the West Midlands for 15 years died of
an asbestos-related disease (ARD), an inquest was told.

Dora Longville, of West Walks, West Bay, died at the age of 66 in
May from mesothelioma.

An inquest into her death at County Hall in Dorchester was told
that from 1990 to 2005 she worked at Brierley Hill Civic Hall and
also worked at the police station, which shared the same building,
for a year back in 1974.  Her husband David Longville said before
she had started working at the Civic Hall he was told there had
been an extensive clear out of asbestos and there was a large
amount of building work going on while she was there.

A statement from Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council said: "Whilst
there is some evidence of asbestos-containing materials in the
building, there is nothing to suggest that Mrs. Longville was
exposed to it."

Dorset coroner Sheriff Payne said, in the absence of any evidence
that she had been exposed to asbestos outside work, he believed
that she had come into contact with the material during her time
at work.

He said: "I think that on balance she must have been exposed to
asbestos during the course of her employment at possibly both the
police station and the Civic Hall in Brierley Hill."

Mr. Payne recorded a verdict of death due to an industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Firm Moves to North East Headquarters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iain Laing of The Journal (UK) reports that a Wearside asbestos
removal company has moved to larger premises to cope with the
growing demand for its services.

Safe Strip UK expects to more than double its turnover from last
year after expanding its business into surveillance and management
as well as the safe removal of asbestos.

Its new site at Easington Lane, near Houghton-le-Spring, will give
the company the ability and flexibility to concentrate on
strategic growth as it looks to expand.

At the moment the company has a number of clients in the North,
including contracts with local government and health trusts, and
carries out work for both domestic and commercial markets.

Once the new North East headquarters is established the firm is
looking to increase its workload and take on further staff.

Michael Lupyna, director at Safe Strip said:  "We started small
but since we started in 2007 we have grown and gradually built up
the business to what it is today.

"This new site has provided the company with a stable and solid
platform from which to grow nationally.  We are all very excited
at the prospect of looking into new areas of operations and
seeking opportunities.

"The surveying department is very close to receiving UKAS
accreditation.  This is expected to be granted late November early
December which will almost certainly allow us to increase our
personnel."

The company was supported throughout the transaction by North East
law firm Gordon Brown.


                           *********

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  * * *