CAR_Public/121207.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 243

                             Headlines

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss "Livingston" Suit Pending
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Suit Still Ongoing
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Opposition Brief in Consumer Suit Due Jan. 4
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sup. Ct. Denies Petition in "Brantley" Suit
CANTINA FOODS: Recalls 2,375 Lbs. of RTE Beef and Cheese Pies

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Workers File Overtime Class Action
COTY: Sued in California Over False Claims on Mascara
DISH NETWORK: Antitrust Class Suit Against Unit Now Concluded
FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Stay Bid Ruling in Suit Over Transfer Taxes
FEDERAL HOME: Class Cert. Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters

FEDERAL HOME: Mich. AG & Treasury Claims in "Hertel" Suit Tossed
FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Still Ongoing
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Administratively Closed in June
FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Defends Class Suits Over Handling of Claims

FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Junk Faxes
GENTIVA HEALTH: Final Hearing on "Wilkie" Suit Deal on March 25
GEOEYE INC: Signed MOU in Oct. to Settle Merger-Related Suits
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Court Allows Paxil Class Action to Proceed
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Suit

HOME DEPOT: Recalls 3,700 Homer's All-Purpose Bucket Mugs
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Suit Appeals To Be Fully Briefed in 2013
HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Fankhouser" Suit Arbitration Hearing on May 13
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Motions to Dismiss "Lamb" Suit Remain Pending
JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Acquisition by Leucadia

JOTUL NORTH: Recalls 1,250 Jotul and Scan Gas Fireplace Inserts
KIRBY CORP: To File Response to Rescue Mission's Class Suit
L&L ENERGY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Mills" Class Action
LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
NEW YORK CITY: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras

NEW YORK LIFE: Sued by Insurance Agents Over Labor Law Violations
NUFARM: Uncertainty Remains Following Shareholder Class Action
ONE WORLD: Judge Narrows Coconut Water Class Action
POPULAR COMMUNITY: Sued Over Imposition of Overdraft Charges
PREMIER FOODS: Framework Set for Bread Price-Fixing Class Actions

RETAIL PROPERTIES: Defends Class Suits Brought by Stockholders
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Rehear Suit Dismissal
SINO-FOREST CORP: E&Y Faces OSC Allegations Following Settlement
STOP & SHOP: Recalls Veggie Patch Ultimate Meatless Burgers
UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans Join Class Action in Connecticut

URS Corporation: Expects 2013 Ruling in Hurricane Katrina Suits
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits OK of Indirect Purchasers Deal
WET SEAL: Guilty of Employee Discrimination, EEOC Probes Show

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Faced 1,081 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Accrues $473MM in Q3 PI Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 96,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 Pending Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faced 4,443 Claims at Oct. 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Currently Defends 29 Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faced 2,155 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Plans to Update Study in 3rd Quarter 2013

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Still Defending Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,773 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Continues to Defend Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Defends London Insurers Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Defends Boudreaux & New Antoine Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faced 315 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors' Row Stops Rawlins Demolition Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issues Delay Bidding for Forks Cleanup Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Material Dumped in Blackpool Back Alley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison Public Library Closes For Abatement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Clients Awarded $17 Million Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Kills Ilkeston Mechanic
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Announces 2013 Conference Speakers, Honorees
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Woes Balloon Pueblo City Hall Project Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Client Awarded $9 Million Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Councils to Get Guidelines for DIY Buffs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Is Now Stand-In for Planet Mars
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Slams MAV's Rejection of AAMR Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Researchers Receive AU$291,815 Fund
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Celebrates Asbestos Awareness Week

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Decrepit Building in Miss. Starts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Project at St. Mary's Park in Penrith
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Forms Model Asbestos Policy for Councils
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forster Mill Demolition Plan to Launch Anytime
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WA Labor Senator Launches Attack on CSR Solicitor

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Minister Doubts Local Anti-Fibro Efforts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Tenterfield Toxic Mulch to Complete
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duluth Will Seek Funds for Armory Remediation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitch Eyes Fibro Reserve Deficit for US Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Starts Online Permit and Notification Service

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Ketchikan Hospital Demolition Begins January
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Black & Decker (US), 27 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oswego DSS Office Moves to Fulton for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnt Fibro in Razed Distillery Investigated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Proposes Bill Aimed for NHS to Recover Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: St Peter's Seminary in Cardross Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid Slams Claims, Says Substations Are Clean
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Urged to Enlist Fibro Under Rotterdam Rule
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Commonwealth, MassDEP Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Milford Resolves Abatement Issue on Lot Sale

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Integrates Fibro With Emergency Services
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loyd E. Mitchell Can Implement Insurers' Accord
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wallace & Gale Trust Blocks PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Date of Disablement Ruling v. Astro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Says Children Are Claimant's Heirs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Ordered to Insure Alfa Laval
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants More Time to Perfect Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Affirms Judgment Favoring Kemper, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Orders New Trial on Suit v. AstenJohnson

                          *********



CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss "Livingston" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation's motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit styled Livingston v. Cablevision Systems
Corporation, et al., remains pending, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a
Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between
February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011.  The complaint alleges
that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the
Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the
Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York
area.  The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same
alleged conduct.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.  On March 26, 2012, the
Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund submitted a joint application to serve as lead
plaintiffs.  The Court granted the application on April 13, 2012.
On June 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the
filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule.

In accordance with that schedule, on October 18, 2012, defendants
served on plaintiffs a motion to dismiss.  The Court's schedule
provides for the motion to be fully briefed by February 1, 2013.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is
unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation  is a defendant in a lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by
several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on
behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey,
Connecticut and New York.  The lawsuit is captioned Marchese, et
al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC.
After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without
prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying
the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television
packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by
Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision
compatible set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble
monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief.  On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision
dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but
allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law
claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer to the third amended
complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.  Discovery is
proceeding.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Opposition Brief in Consumer Suit Due Jan. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation's brief in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the matter titled In
re Cablevision Consumer Litigation is due on January 4, 2013,
according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on
October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the
programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations
and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television
systems.  On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an
agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and
networks, and carriage was restored.  Several purported class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's
customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those
lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer was filed on
May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.  The Company's brief in opposition to the
motion is due on January 4, 2013.  On October 19, 2012, plaintiffs
obtained leave of the Court to file a motion for partial summary
judgment on November 19, 2012.  Discovery is also proceeding.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sup. Ct. Denies Petition in "Brantley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied in November 2012 Brantley, et al.'s
petition seeking leave to appeal the affirmation of the dismissal
of their class action lawsuit, according to Cablevision Systems
Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite subscribers,
purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite
subscribers, filed an antitrust lawsuit, captioned Brantley, et
al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Cablevision and several
other defendants, including other cable and satellite providers
and programming content providers.  The complaint, as amended,
alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of programming
on a "bundled" basis and by offering programming in packaged tiers
rather than on an "a la carte" basis.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.  On June 12, 2009,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended
complaint.  On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted the
defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended complaint with
prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any non-defendant
programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary element of the
alleged antitrust injury.  On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On March 30, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case.  On April 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed
petitions for rehearing which the Ninth Circuit denied on May 4,
2012.

On August 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking leave to
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  On November 5, 2012, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition.  Plaintiffs' deadline to seek
rehearing of the order was on November 30, 2012.


CANTINA FOODS: Recalls 2,375 Lbs. of RTE Beef and Cheese Pies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cantina Foods, a Buffalo, New York establishment, is recalling
approximately 2,375 pounds of ready-to-eat beef and cheese pie
products because they were produced without the benefit of federal
inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * Cartons containing four clear plastic bags with six 4-oz.
     "Beef and Cheese Pastellios" in each bag.

There are no labels or marks of inspection on the bags or cartons.
The products were produced and sold from October 3, 2012, through
November 20, 2012, and distributed to retail establishments in the
Buffalo, N.Y. region.  The individual pies may have been available
for sale from heat trays at convenience stores.

The Company had requested to voluntarily suspend its operations in
September 2012 after a food safety assessment by FSIS identified
problems with the firm's Listeria monocytogenes control program.
Through their investigation, FSIS enforcement personnel identified
the products in commerce and determined that the Company had
produced them without the benefit of inspection.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:

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

Consumers and members of the media who have questions regarding
the recall can contact the Company's owner, Toumet Koury, at (716)
602-3536.

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Beef and Cheese Pastellios that have been recalled by Cantina
Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/Rkap5w,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name        City and State
    -------------        --------------
    Citgo Food Mart      389 Fillmore Ave., Buffalo, New York
    Sunoco Gas Station   221 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York
    Gulf Gas Station     1079 Military Road, Buffalo, New York


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Workers File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Children's Hospital Los
Angeles stiffs hourly workers for overtime and breaks other labor
laws, a worker claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class
action.


COTY: Sued in California Over False Claims on Mascara
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Coty pushes a mascara with
false claims that it will "grow and multiply eyelashes" in 30
days, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court.


DISH NETWORK: Antitrust Class Suit Against Unit Now Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of DISH
Network Corporation is now concluded, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The lawsuit also
names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter,
Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox
Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as
opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an
"a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009, the District Court
entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order.  The plaintiff
class sought rehearing en banc.  On October 31, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit issued an order vacating the previous June 3, 2011 order,
directing that a 3-judge panel be reconstituted, and denying the
plaintiff class' motion for rehearing.  On March 30, 2012, the
reconstituted panel of the Ninth Circuit again affirmed the
District Court's order.  On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff class
again filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on
May 4, 2012.  On August 2, 2012, the plaintiff class filed a
petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court, which
was denied on November 5, 2012.  The matter is now concluded.


FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Stay Bid Ruling in Suit Over Transfer Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting a court
decision on its motion to stay the proceedings in the class action
lawsuits in Michigan related to unpaid real estate transfer taxes,
according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On June 20, 2011, Oakland County (Michigan) and the Oakland County
Treasurer filed a lawsuit against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
alleging that the enterprises failed to pay real estate transfer
taxes on transfers of real property in Oakland County where the
enterprises were the grantors.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae.  On November 10, 2011, Genesee County (Michigan) and the
Genesee County Treasurer filed a class action lawsuit in the same
court on behalf of itself and the other 82 Michigan counties
raising similar claims against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac,
and Fannie Mae.  The Court later certified the class, with two
Michigan counties opting out.  The Michigan Department of Attorney
General and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened in both
actions against the defendants.  In both actions, FHFA, Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae asserted that they were not liable for the
transfer taxes based on federal statutory tax exemptions
applicable to each.

On March 23, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment against FHFA
(as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae in both actions,
determining that the statutory exemptions did not exempt them from
Michigan's state and county transfer tax.  The plaintiffs in both
cases subsequently filed amended complaints to cover purportedly
taxable transactions where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae received
property as grantees through a Michigan Sheriff's deed or a deed
in lieu of foreclosure.  FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and
Fannie Mae filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit and have requested that the District Court stay the
actions pending resolution of the appeal.  The District Court has
not yet ruled on the defendants' motion for a stay, nor has it
addressed the amount of damages the plaintiffs contend are owed in
either case.

At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict
the probable outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect on
its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operation.  In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss with respect
to these lawsuits due to the following factors, among others: (a)
none of the plaintiffs have demanded a stated amount of damages
they believe are due; (b) with respect to the Oakland County and
Genesee County lawsuits, the scope of permissible claims has not
yet been determined and discovery regarding the amount of damages
is still in the early stages; and (c) with respect to the other
lawsuits, discovery regarding the amount of damages has not yet
begun.


FEDERAL HOME: Class Cert. Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied in
September a motion for class certification in a lawsuit alleging
federal securities laws violations, according to Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al.  On April 30, 2009, the
Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2,
2009.  The consolidated complaint alleged that three former
Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's
auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false
and misleading statements in connection with the company's
November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.  The
complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others made
additional false statements following the offering.  The complaint
named as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
JPMorgan Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,
UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

After the Court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, amended consolidated complaint, and second
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Syron
and Piszel, omitting Cook and the underwriter defendants, on
November 14, 2010.  On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the
remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with respect
to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect
to Syron and Piszel.  On April 4, 2011, Piszel filed a motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted that motion
on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs moved for class certification,
which motion was ultimately denied by the Court.  On May 31, 2012,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the denial of class
certification.  In August 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to file
another motion for class certification, which request the Court
denied on September 25, 2012.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the underwriting agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.
At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential effect on its
business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operations.  In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event
of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the inherent
uncertainty of litigation and the fact that plaintiffs may appeal
the denial of class certification.  Absent the certification of a
specified class, the identification of a class period, and the
identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive
dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss.


FEDERAL HOME: Mich. AG & Treasury Claims in "Hertel" Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims asserted by the Michigan Department of Attorney General and
the Michigan Department of Treasury in the lawsuit originally
filed by Curtis Hertel were dismissed in September 2012, according
to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On or about June 22, 2011, Curtis Hertel (individually and as
Register of Deeds of Ingham County, Michigan) filed a lawsuit in
Michigan state court against Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and others
alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay
real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in Ingham
County where the enterprises were the grantors and grantees.  The
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the Michigan
Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of
Treasury intervened against the defendants.  The defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan and then filed motions to dismiss and/or for
summary judgment.  The Court dismissed plaintiff Hertel from the
case concluding that Hertel was not a proper plaintiff.  On
September 18, 2012, the Court ruled in favor of Freddie Mac,
Fannie Mae and FHFA on their motion to dismiss and/or for summary
judgment as to the claims asserted by the Michigan Department of
Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury, finding
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae exempt from the Michigan transfer
taxes.

At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict
the probable outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect on
its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operation.  In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss with respect
to these lawsuits due to the following factors, among others: (a)
none of the plaintiffs have demanded a stated amount of damages
they believe are due; (b) with respect to the Oakland County and
Genesee County lawsuits, the scope of permissible claims has not
yet been determined and discovery regarding the amount of damages
is still in the early stages; and (c) with respect to the other
lawsuits, discovery regarding the amount of damages has not yet
begun.


FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, according to Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

The putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al., was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on
January 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006, through November 20, 2007.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business, risk management and the
procedures it puts into place to protect the Company from problems
in the mortgage industry.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees.  On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed
OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.  On
September 2, 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint.  On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.  On November 19, 2008, the Court granted
the motion of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to
intervene in its capacity as Conservator.  On April 6, 2009,
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On January 23, 2012, the Court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss.  On March 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed its third amended
complaint, which included allegations based on a non-prosecution
agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December
15, 2011.  On April 26, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss
the third amended complaint.  The Court denied the motions on May
25, 2012.  All defendants have filed answers to the third amended
complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.

At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on
the Company's business, financial condition, liquidity, or results
of operations.  In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event
of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the following factors,
among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation;
and the fact that the parties have not fully briefed and the Court
has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary
judgment.  In particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range
of possible loss.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Administratively Closed in June
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jacoby vs. Syron, et al., was
administratively closed in June 2012, according to Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

On December 16, 2011, the SEC announced that it had charged three
former executives of Freddie Mac with securities laws violations.
These executives are former Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer Richard F. Syron, former Executive Vice
President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L. Cook, and former
Executive Vice President for the single-family guarantee business
Donald J. Bisenius.

On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others
styled Jacoby vs. Syron, Cook, Piszel, Banc of America Securities
LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and FTN Financial Markets.  The
complaint, as amended on December 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's September 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred stock,
and that certain former Freddie Mac officers made additional false
statements following the offering.  Freddie Mac is not named as a
defendant in this lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave
notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity
and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case,
including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal
counsel.  After a period of dormancy, the Court closed the case by
administrative order on June 5, 2012.


FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action entitled Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, Piszel and Cook have appealed the dismissal of their
lawsuit, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook is another
putative class action lawsuit that was filed against Freddie Mac
and certain former officers on August 15, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007,
through August 5, 2008.  The plaintiffs claimed that defendants
made false and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business
that artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common
stock, and sought unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On February 6, 2009, the Court granted the motion of the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to intervene in its capacity as
Conservator.  On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 20, 2007, through
September 7, 2008.  Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on February 24, 2010.  On March 30, 2011, the Court
granted without prejudice the defendants' motions to dismiss all
claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file a new
complaint, which they did on July 18, 2011.  On October 13, 2011,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint.  On February 17, 2012, the plaintiffs
served a motion seeking leave to file a third amended consolidated
complaint based on the non-prosecution agreement entered into
between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December 15, 2011.  On
September 24, 2012, the Court granted with prejudice defendants'
motions to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint in its
entirety, denied plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended
complaint, and directed that the case be closed.  Judgment was
entered in favor of the defendants on September 27, 2012.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2012.

At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on
its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operations.  In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event
of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the following factors,
among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in
the event plaintiffs' appeal is granted and the case is remanded
to the district court; and the fact that the parties have not
briefed and the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment.  In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss.


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Defends Class Suits Over Handling of Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corporation is defending class action lawsuits
over handling of claims made in connection with its insurance
policies, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company and its subsidiaries are named from time to time as
defendants in various legal actions that are incidental to its
business, including those which arise out of or are related to the
handling of claims made in connection with its insurance policies
and claims handling.  The plaintiffs in some of these lawsuits
have alleged bad faith or extra-contractual damages, and some have
sought punitive damages or class action status.  The Company
believes that the resolution of these legal actions will not have
a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.  However, the ultimate outcome of these matters is
uncertain.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Junk Faxes
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Missouri
cardiology practice has accused a Forest Laboratories Inc. unit of
sending junk faxes advertising a blood pressure drug in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to a proposed
class action removed to federal court on Nov. 30.

St. Louis Heart Center Inc. says it received 40 junk faxes from
the defendants between August 2010 and January 2011, in violation
of the TCPA, which prohibits entities from sending or having an
agent send unsolicited advertisements via fax.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Final Hearing on "Wilkie" Suit Deal on March 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on final court approval of Gentiva Health Services, Inc.'s
settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Catherine Wilkie
is scheduled for March 25, 2013, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleged
wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and California law.  The complaint alleged that the
Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly
basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The complaint further alleged that California
employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal
and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements and timely
payment of wages.  The plaintiff sought class certification,
attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties and damages going back
three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and
hour claims.  The parties held mediation discussions on August 3,
2011, and March 7, 2012.  The parties have finalized the terms of
a monetary settlement, and the Company has paid $5 million in
escrow to settle all claims in the lawsuit, including the
plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
October 5, 2012, and a hearing on the motion for final court
approval of the settlement is scheduled for March 25, 2013.


GEOEYE INC: Signed MOU in Oct. to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
GeoEye, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding in October
2012 to settle a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On July 22, 2012, GeoEye entered into an agreement and plan of
merger, the Merger Agreement, with DigitalGlobe, Inc., pursuant to
which GeoEye will be merged with and into DigitalGlobe, Inc.  On
August 30, 2012, GeoEye entered into an amendment to this Merger
Agreement, which removes the reference to a requirement that the
DigitalGlobe stockholders approve the assumption of GeoEye stock
plans and the issuance of DigitalGlobe common stock thereunder,
because there is no obligation to seek such approval pursuant to
such plans, applicable law or stock exchange requirements.  On
October 30, 2012, the Company filed a Proxy Statement announcing a
special meeting of GeoEye Stockholders to approve the adoption of
such Merger Agreement.

In July 2012, GeoEye and the GeoEye board of directors,
DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC were
named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.  The lawsuits were brought on behalf of proposed classes
consisting of all public holders of GeoEye common stock, excluding
the defendants and, among others, their affiliates.  The actions
were captioned: Behnke v. GeoEye, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-826-
CMH-TCB, filed on July 26, 2012; Braendli v. GeoEye, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:12-CV-841-CMH-TRJ, filed on July 30, 2012; and Crow v.
Abrahamson, et al., No. 1:12-CV-842-CMH-TCB, filed on July 30,
2012.  On September 7, 2012, the Court ordered the consolidation
of the three actions.  The consolidated action is captioned: In re
GeoEye, Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Consol. No. 1:12-cv-00826-
CMH-TCB.  The Court's consolidation order provided for, among
other things, the appointment of the law firms of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Finkelstein Thompson
LLP as members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee of Lead
Counsel ("Lead Counsel") and the setting of the defendants'
response date to the amended complaint as 30 days after its
filing.  A corrected amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on September 24, 2012.  The amended complaint
contains allegations that the GeoEye board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize
stockholder value, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures
and failing to disclose certain information necessary to make an
informed vote on whether to approve the proposed merger.
DigitalGlobe is alleged to have aided and abetted these breaches
of fiduciary duty.  In addition, the amended complaint contains
allegations that the GeoEye board of directors and DigitalGlobe
violated Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by
the filing of a Registration Statement allegedly omitting material
facts and setting forth materially misleading information.  The
consolidated action seeks, among other things, a declaration that
a class action is maintainable, an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger and an award of damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On September 28, 2012, Lead Counsel filed a motion for expedited
discovery.  On September 30, 2012, Lead Counsel made a
confidential settlement demand requesting additional disclosures
to address the alleged omissions raised in the amended complaint.

On October 9, 2012, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the consolidated action entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to settle all claims asserted therein on
a classwide basis.  GeoEye and the GeoEye board of directors,
DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC
entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing.  In connection with the MOU, DigitalGlobe
agreed to make additional disclosures in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 10, 2012.  The settlement set forth in the
MOU includes a release of all claims against defendants alleged in
the corrected amended complaint, and is subject to, among other
items, the execution of a stipulation of settlement and court
approval, as well as the Merger becoming effective under
applicable law.  Payments made in connection with the settlement,
which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be
material to GeoEye.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Court Allows Paxil Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Kingston, writing for Macleans.ca, reports that a Supreme
Court of British Columbia decision has paved way for Canada's
first national class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of an
antidepressant drug alleged to have caused birth defects in
children born to women who took it during pregnancy.

In the ruling dated Dec. 3, 2012, Faith Gibson of Surrey, B.C. was
appointed "representative plaintiff" on behalf of a class defined
as "any person in Canada, born with cardiovascular defects, to
women who ingested Paxil while pregnant, and the mothers of those
persons."

In December 2002, Ms. Gibson was prescribed Paxil, a selective
serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) manufactured by
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. that was approved for use in Canada in 1993.
She took it throughout her pregnancy; on Sept. 13, 2004, her
daughter, Meah Bartram was born with a ventricular septal defect,
more commonly known as a "hole in the heart."

Lawyer David Rosenberg, of Vancouver's Rosenberg & Rosenberg will
argue that GlaxoSmithKline knew or ought to have known of the
risks and failed to provide adequate and timely warning to doctors
and the public.  In 2005, Health Canada sent out a warning in
agreement with GlaxoSmithKline that advised infants exposed to
Paxil in the first trimester had a higher risk of congenital
malformations, specifically cardiovascular defects.

Next up, says Rosenberg, is a "common issues trial" in which a
judge decides for the entire class certain common issues, such as
"Did Paxil increase likelihood of birth defects?" and "Did
GlaxoSmithKline fail to adequately warn Health Canada of the
risks."

GlaxoSmithKline Inc. has 30 days to appeal the decision.


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that female
attorneys demand $200 million from Greenberg Traurig in a federal
class action, claiming it engages in "systematic, firm-wide
discriminatory treatment of its female shareholders on the basis
of their gender."

Francine Friedman Griesing, a former Greenberg Traurig attorney,
sued the firm on behalf of a class of current and former female
shareholders.

"Shareholder" is Greenberg Traurig's equivalent to "partner" at
other law firms, according to the complaint.

Ms. Griesing, who was a low-ranking shareholder at the firm's
Philadelphia office from April 2007 to January 2010, claims
Greenberg Traurig fired her in retaliation for complaints of
discriminatory employment practices.

She says the firm "pays women less, promotes them at lower rates
than men and virtually freezes them out from high-level managerial
positions," and that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
agrees.

"In a June 28, 2012 determination, the federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ('EEOC') found 'reasonable cause to
believe' that GT discriminated against its women attorneys in
violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act by compensating women
-- including plaintiff Griesing -- less than similarly situated
male counterparts and treating Ms. Griesing and class members less
favorably than similarly situated male shareholders," the
complaint states.

"Such a finding is extremely rare.  For example, in 2011, the EEOC
found reasonable cause in only 3.8 percent of all investigations,
including both individual and class charges.

"Moreover, the EEOC also found that GT retaliated against
Ms. Griesing because she raised concerns about GT's
discrimination."

Ms. Griesing says that Greenberg Traurig stands out even though
discrimination against women is pervasive at large law firms,
which, according to recent national surveys, compensate male
partners on average $237,000 more per year than female partners,
and deny female attorneys client-origination credit and other
opportunities.

"Yet even in a field dominated by archaic gender stereotypes, GT
stands out for its culture of discrimination against female
attorneys," the complaint states.  "While the firm advertises a
commitment to equal opportunity for female attorneys, the reality
is far different.

"The firm ranked 193 out of 221 top law firms in the number of
female equity partners, according to the National Law Journal,
'Women in the Equity Partnership: How Firms Fare.'  Indeed, women
represent only 9.62 percent of GT's equity shareholders, well
below the national average of 15 percent for AMLaw 200 and
National Law Journal 250 firms.

"GT's Philadelphia office, where plaintiff Griesing worked,
exemplifies the firm's broad-based and engrained sexism.  As the
EEOC recognized, male shareholders in GT's Philadelphia office
receive (a) more compensation than similarly situated female
shareholders; (b) greater business-generating opportunities and
internal referrals from other male shareholders; and (c) higher
titles than similarly situated female shareholders.  GT, in short,
pays women less, promotes them at lower rates than men and
virtually freezes them out from high-level managerial positions.

"GT's gender disparities are neither coincidental nor limited to
its Philadelphia office. One man, CEO Richard Rosenbaum ('CEO
Rosenbaum'), makes all promotion and compensation decisions for
each and every GT shareholder nationwide. CEO Rosenbaum consults
with only four other high-ranking male GT shareholders on
shareholder compensation: the executive chairman, the president,
the chairman of the board and a regional operating shareholder.
Together, these five men make up GT's compensation committee, a
centralized brotherhood controlling who gets paid what at all
times.

"Greenberg Traurig has never had a female CEO, and, upon
information and belief, has never had a female member of the
compensation committee.

"In addition, members of the compensation committee openly express
animus toward female shareholders.  For example, CEO Rosenbaum
told Ms. Griesing that female shareholders in the Philadelphia
office were 'worthless,' and that they are allowed to stay at the
firm only because regional operating shareholder Michel Lehr ('Mr.
Lehr' or 'Regional Operating Shareholder Lehr') 'liked to keep
them around.'  Mr. Lehr, who ran several offices (including
Philadelphia) and served on the compensation committee, told
female attorneys that only 'tall, male and Jewish' GT lawyers
generate business.

"At the same time, Mr. Lehr has admitted that there is 'no
formula' for compensation and that it is entirely subjective,
commenting that female shareholders are 'lucky' to get paid as
much as they do.  CEO Rosenbaum has echoed this admission,
characterizing GT's compensation decisions as 'somewhat of an art
form.'

"GT conceals its arbitrary and discriminatory decision-making by
using a 'closed' compensation system where decisions are made in a
black box in order to shield from review, critique or appeal both
its methodology (if any) and final decisions."

Ms. Griesing has more than 30 years of experience in business
counseling, complex litigation, alternate dispute resolution and
government affairs, according to the complaint.

She says she "performed exceptionally well" at Greenberg Traurig
and was praised by Mr. Lehr, who told her she had "hit the ball
out of the park" in generating business.

Nevertheless, she claims, Greenberg Traurig assigned her and other
female attorneys to lower shareholder levels than similar or
lesser-qualified male attorneys.

"For example, when the firm hired Ms. Griesing, it assigned her to
the 300 level -- the lowest possible -- while the firm assigned
similarly or less qualified males to the 500 level," the complaint
states.  "In fact, when Ms. Griesing joined GT, all but one of the
female shareholders in the Pennsylvania office were assigned to
the 300 level, even though many had more experience and better
qualifications than several of the male shareholders assigned to
the 500 level.  Upon information and belief, the only female
shareholder in the Philadelphia office at the 500 level at that
time was involved in a long-term, intimate relationship with a
highly placed, senior male shareholder.

"By assigning women to lower levels and delaying their promotion,
the firm denies its female shareholders compensation and
opportunities to which they are otherwise entitled."

Greenberg Traurig has three shareholder levels: 300 level, 500
level and 1,000 level.  The firm assigns incoming attorneys to the
300 or 500 level, and requires them to spend at least 3 years at
the 500 level before being eligible for the 1,000 level.  The
1,000-level shareholders are the most highly paid and refer
business to one another, increasing business generation and
compensation for each other, according to the complaint.

Ms. Griesing says Greenberg Traurig has no objective criteria for
assigning or promoting shareholders, and makes excuses for
promoting male shareholders over better-qualified female
counterparts.

"Accordingly, GT senior management can and does exploit the system
to offer opportunities to male shareholders who are often less
qualified than their female counterparts," Ms. Griesing says.
"Even male shareholders who (a) are irresponsible, often absent
and perform poorly due to various personal problems or (b) have
substantially less professional, leadership or business
development experience and lower financial contributions are
assigned by GT into higher levels or are promoted over female
shareholders like Ms. Griesing with exemplary records,
significantly more experience and superior contributions."

Ms. Griesing claims the firm pays female shareholders less than it
pays their male peers and denies them opportunities to increase
their origination and timekeeper revenue.

She claims the firm "commonly and openly makes compensation
decisions based on archaic assumptions that men were responsible
for financially supporting a family," and unfairly evaluates
women's performance because of their parenting duties.

She says Greenberg Traurig has allowed male shareholders to form a
"boys' club" which steers business their way through internal
referrals, and excludes female shareholders from client pitches
and associated origination and timekeeper revenue.

And she claims the firm allocates resources and staff to male
shareholders at the expense of female shareholders.

Ms. Griesing claims that even though she generated more than $4
million in revenue for the firm, Greenberg Traurig underpaid her
compared to male shareholders, and failed to increase her bonus
according to her performance.

She says the only women shareholders treated fairly at Greenberg
Traurig are those in intimate relationships with firm management.

"GT has one exception to its general practice of denying women
professional development opportunities and compensating women less
than men," the complaint states.  "GT prioritizes, pays and
promotes women who have intimate relationships with firm leaders
or who acquiesce to sexualized stereotypes."

After Ms. Griesing complained about the firm's discriminatory
treatment, she says, Greenberg Traurig denied her equal access to
client work and origination opportunities, refused to pay her on
time, interfered with her relationship with other shareholders and
associates, and threatened to sue her for defamation if she
pursued her claims against the firm.

She says the firm fired her in January 2010.

Ms. Griesing filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC after
CEO Rosenbaum told her that "he would not investigate her
allegations unless she agreed to be 'happy' at the firm,"
according to the complaint.

She says the EEOC found "reasonable cause to believe" that the
firm retaliated against her after she complained about
discrimination.

She claims she suffered significant emotional distress due to
Greenberg Traurig's discrimination and retaliation.

Ms. Griesing seeks class certification, more than $200 million in
back pay, front pay and compensatory and punitive damages for
discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination, and wants
the unlawful practices stopped.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5655
          E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com


HOME DEPOT: Recalls 3,700 Homer's All-Purpose Bucket Mugs
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Home Depot and Mr. Christmas Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,700 mugs.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The silver-colored simulated bucket handle below the rim can spark
when used in a microwave oven, posing a fire hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is an orange ceramic mug about 4.5 inches
tall with a large vertical cup handle on the side.  The mug has
the words "The Home Depot," "Homer's All-purpose Bucket" and a
cartoon character with a utility bucket on the front.  A silver-
colored simulated bucket handle is just below the rim.  The date
"2012" and the words "(C) Mr. Christmas" and "Made in China" are
on the underside of the mug.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13056.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot stores during October 2012 for about $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mug and
return it to a Home Depot store for a full refund.  Home Depot may
be reached toll-free at (877) 527-0313, then select "Other Brands"
at the prompt, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or http://www.homedepot.com/,then click on
"Product Recalls."


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Suit Appeals To Be Fully Briefed in 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust disclosed in its November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it expects appeals from
class certification orders in lawsuits pending in Kansas and
Oklahoma to be fully briefed in early 2013.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.
The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.  The plaintiffs have
filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and
Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter.  After filing
the motion to certify, but prior to the class certification
hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma
portion of the case so it could be transferred and consolidated
with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain
Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted.  The
Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously
included in the Fankhouser matter.  The case was certified as a
class action in March 2012.  XTO Energy has filed an appeal of the
class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April
11, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper.  The
appeal was granted on June 26, 2012.  It is expected that the
matter will be fully briefed in early 2013 and the Court will rule
at a time of its discretion.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma.  XTO Energy removed the case to
federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs
allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty
payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to
secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.  The case
expressly excludes those claims and wells being prosecuted in the
Fankhouser case.  The severed Roderick case claims related to the
Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain.
The case was certified as a class action in April 2012.  XTO
Energy has filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 26, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper.
The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012.  It is expected that the
matter will be fully briefed in early 2013 and the Court will rule
at a time of its discretion.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend its position.  However, XTO Energy is cognizant
of other, similar litigation involving it, such as Fankhouser, and
other, unrelated entities.  As these cases develop XTO Energy will
assess its legal position accordingly.  If XTO Energy ultimately
makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it in
Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it
believes that the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's
net profits interests require the trust to bear its 80% share of
such settlement or judgment related to production from the
underlying properties.  Additionally, if the judgment or
settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty
owners, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that the trust would
bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through
reduced net proceeds.  In the event of any such settlement or
judgment, the trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in
payment to the trust based on the facts and circumstances of such
settlement or judgment.  XTO Energy has informed the trustee that,
although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not
presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is
not currently expected to be material to the trust's financial
position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's
annual distributable income.  Additionally, XTO Energy has advised
the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding
revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of
the cases, as applicable, for several monthly distributions,
depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and
the net proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in
the net profits interest being limited until such time that the
revenues exceed the costs for those net profit interests.  If
there is a settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the
trustee disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or
judgment to be charged against the trust's net profits interests,
the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration under the terms
of the Indenture creating the trust through the American
Arbitration Association.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Fankhouser" Suit Arbitration Hearing on May 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitration hearing in the class action lawsuit styled
Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. has been tentatively scheduled for
May 13, 2013, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's November 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas
wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.  The plaintiffs allege that XTO
Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the
royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June
2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies
owed for additional time.  XTO Energy removed the case to federal
district court in Oklahoma City.  In April 2010, new counsel and
representative parties, Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to
intervene and prosecute the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v.
XTO Energy Inc.  This motion was granted on July 13, 2010.  The
new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment.  On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class.
Cross motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties and
ruled on by the court.

After consideration of the rulings by the court in March and April
of 2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and some benefiting the
plaintiffs, and with due regard to the vagaries of litigation and
their uncertain outcomes, XTO Energy and the plaintiffs entered
into settlement negotiations prior to trial and reached a
tentative settlement of $37 million on April 23, 2012.  This
includes $1.4 million of a Kansas portion which predates the Trust
and therefore has been excluded from Kansas net profits interest.
The hearing for formal court approval was conducted on June 21,
2012, and preliminarily approved by the court on
June 29, 2012.

A fairness hearing was conducted on October 10, 2012, and the
settlement was given final approval by the court.  The court's
order sets out the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to
the plaintiffs' counsel from the $37 million settlement.  XTO
Energy has advised the trustee it believes that the terms of the
conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require the
trust to bear its 80% interest in the settlement, or approximately
$28.5 million, of which $23.4 million will affect the net proceeds
from Oklahoma and $5.1 million will affect the net proceeds from
Kansas.  If so, this will adversely affect the net proceeds of the
trust from Oklahoma and Kansas and will result in costs exceeding
revenues on these properties.  XTO Energy began deducting the
settlement amount with the September 2012 distribution.  Based on
the revised settlement allocation between Oklahoma and Kansas and
recent revenue and expense levels, it is expected that the
deductions XTO Energy has stated it has made, and will continue to
make, will cause costs to exceed revenues for approximately 12
months on properties underlying the Oklahoma net profits interests
and by approximately 7 years on properties underlying the Kansas
net profits interests; however, changes in oil or natural gas
prices or expenses could cause the time period to increase or
decrease correspondingly.  The net profits interest from Wyoming
is unaffected and payments will continue to be made from those
properties to the extent revenues exceed costs on such properties.
XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the settlement is expected
to decrease the amount of net profits going forward for the
Oklahoma and Kansas properties due to changes in the way costs
(such as gathering, compression and fuel) associated with
operating the properties will be allocated, resulting in a net
gain to the royalty interest owners.  XTO Energy has advised the
trustee that this expected net upward revision for the royalty
interest owners will reduce applicable net profits to XTO Energy
and, correspondingly, to the trust.  The revision is expected to
be calculated in early 2013 and at this time the impact is not
fully determinable.  The trustee has advised XTO Energy that all
or a portion of the settlement amount should not be deducted from
trust revenues.

XTO Energy does not agree with the trustee's position and to
resolve this disagreement XTO Energy initiated binding arbitration
on August 1, 2012, in accordance with the terms of the dispute
resolution provisions of the Trust Indenture.  On August 17, 2012,
the trustee filed its response to XTO's arbitration claim.  All
issues in the arbitration will be decided by a panel of three
arbitrators (the "Tribunal").  Each side selected one arbitrator
and the third arbitrator was selected by the other two appointed
arbitrators.  The arbitration will be administered by the American
Arbitration Association under its commercial rules.  The
arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 13, 2013, in
Fort Worth, Texas, if not sooner disposed of by the parties by
agreement or by the Tribunal on motion.  Because XTO Energy has
advised the trustee that it began deducting the settlement in
September, the trustee has reserved a total of $900,000 from trust
distributions to help fund potential legal and other expenses
relating to the arbitration.  The trustee believes that without
such a reserve, the trust is likely to be left without adequate
resources to fund the costs of the arbitration out of monthly
trust revenues.  Because the potential expenses of arbitration are
uncertain, especially at this early stage of the arbitration, it
is possible that the reserve may not be sufficient to cover all of
such expenses.  The trustee requested that the Tribunal enjoin XTO
Energy from continuing to deduct the Fankhouser settlement amount
while the arbitration is pending.  A hearing on the injunction was
held on October 27, 2012.  The Tribunal ordered that pending the
issuance of a final award or further order of the Tribunal, XTO
Energy should not treat any costs or expenses associated with the
Fankhouser settlement as chargeable against the trust's net profit
interest under the conveyances.  The Tribunal denied the trust's
request for an interim order directing XTO Energy to pay the trust
the amounts offset against the trust's September and October 2012
distributions on the basis of the Fankhouser litigation.  Based on
this decision, deductions associated with the Fankhouser
settlement was suspended starting in November 2012.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Motions to Dismiss "Lamb" Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc.'s motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit
commenced by Harold Lamb remain pending, according to Hugoton
Royalty Trust's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On September 12, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against Bank of
America, N.A., as trustee and XTO Energy styled Harold Lamb v.
Bank of America and XTO Energy Inc., in the U.S. District Court -
Western District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiff, Harold Lamb, is a
unitholder in the trust and alleges that XTO Energy failed to
properly pay and account to the trust under the terms of the net
overriding royalty conveyance on certain Kansas and Oklahoma
properties and that Bank of America, as trustee, failed to
properly oversee such payment and accounting by XTO Energy.
Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Bank of America and XTO
Energy have breached a fiduciary duty to the trust based on the
allegations found in the Fankhouser class action.  The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified amounts for actual/compensatory damages,
punitive damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, the plaintiff dismissed Bank of America from the
lawsuit.  XTO Energy has filed a motion to transfer venue in an
effort to move the case from Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.  XTO has also filed two
motions to dismiss.

Certain of the underlying properties are involved in various other
lawsuits and certain governmental proceedings arising in the
ordinary course of business.  XTO Energy has advised the trustee
that it does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these
claims will have a material effect on the financial position or
liquidity of the trust, but may have an effect on annual
distributable income.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Acquisition by Leucadia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Lasker Ira, On behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Jefferies Group, Inc., Leucadia National Corporation,
Richard B. Handler, Brian P. Friedman, Ian G. Cumming, Joseph S.
Steinberg, W. Patrick Campbell, Richard G. Dooley, Robert E.
Joyal, and Michael T. O'Kane, Case No. 653924/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
November 14, 2012) seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on November 12, 2012, pursuant to which Leucadia would
acquire all outstanding shares of Jefferies.

The complaint asserts that the Proposed Transaction is the result
of a flawed self-dealing process by Jefferies, Leucadia and their
boards of directors.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Proposed
Transaction resulted from the Board's failure to maximize
shareholder value and deprived Jefferies' public shareholders of
the ability to participate in its favorable long-term prospects in
order to unfairly benefit Leucadia and the Individual Defendants.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Jefferies.

Jefferies is a Delaware corporation based in New York.  Jefferies
operates as a securities and investment banking firm in two
business segments, Capital Markets and Asset Management.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: jbrody@ssbny.com
                  abrody@ssbny.com


JOTUL NORTH: Recalls 1,250 Jotul and Scan Gas Fireplace Inserts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Jotul North America, of Gorham, Maine, announced
a voluntary recall of about 1,200 Jotul and Scan gas fireplace
inserts in the United States of America and 50 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 fireplace insert's electrical wiring can come into contact
with the metal rating plate on the insert, posing electrical shock
and burn hazards to consumers.

The firm has received one report of an electric shock and burn
injury with the recalled fireplace inserts.

This recall involves four models of Jotul and Scan brand gas
fireplace inserts.  These inserts fit into existing vented
fireplaces providing a variety of fireplace effects fueled by
natural gas or liquid propane.  The fireplace inserts are cast
iron or steel and have a glass front, ceramic fiber logs, a gas
burner and an electrical cord.  They measure about 17 inches by 32
inches.  The model and serial numbers are located on a metal
rating plate inside the bottom front panel of the fireplace
insert.

                          Model
   Model Names            Numbers    Serial Numbers
   -----------            -------    --------------
   Jotul GI 450 DVII      350860     30001 through 31056
   Jotul GI 450 DV TSI    350861     30001 through 31056
   Scan 45i               350862     1001 through 1182
   Scan 45i TSI           350866     1001 through 1182

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13055.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at independent specialty fireplace and stove
stores nationwide and in Canada from June 2010 through September
2012 for about $2,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
gas fireplace inserts before checking the unit's model and serial
numbers.  Contact the store where purchased or Jotul directly to
schedule a free repair.  Jotul North America may be reached at
(800) 797-5912, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or online at http://www.jotul.com/and click on
Consumer Bulletin for more information.


KIRBY CORP: To File Response to Rescue Mission's Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Corporation disclosed in its November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it is still preparing its
response to the class action complaint filed by Rescue Mission of
El Paso., Inc., et al.

On July 1, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of K-Sea
Transportation Partners L.P. ("K-Sea"), an operator of tank barges
and tugboats participating in the coastal transportation primarily
of refined petroleum products in the United States.  On April 17,
2012, the Company changed the name of K-Sea to Kirby Offshore
Marine, LLC ("Kirby Offshore Marine") to more fully integrate the
Company's coastal operations with the Company's inland marine
transportation operations.

On January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc.,
et al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K-
Sea, and current and former officers and directors of K-Sea were
named defendants in a putative class action complaint asserting
that during the period of January 30, 2009, to January 27, 2010,
K-Sea allegedly failed to disclose certain facts regarding K-Sea's
operations and financial condition, and asserting violations of
Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs filed its Amended Consolidated Complaint on behalf
of the class on July 9, 2012.

The Company says it is preparing its response to the Complaint.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on the
information available to the Company at this time.  The Company
does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however,
there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter.

Founded in 1921 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Kirby
Corporation -- http://www.kirbycorp.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides marine transportation and diesel engine
services primarily in the United States.


L&L ENERGY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Mills" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
L&L Energy, Inc. on Dec. 3 disclosed that the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit (Mills
vs. L&L Energy, Inc., Case No. C11-1423RSL) filed against L&L and
several of its officers and directors.

The lawsuit was based on internet reports published by short
sellers.  L&L denied the accusations contained in these reports.
In the lawsuit, L&L and the other defendants filed a motion with
the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which was granted
on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a
violation of federal securities law.  While the plaintiffs may
seek the court's permission to file an amended complaint, the
following comments from the judge were favorable to L&L:

"The record suggests that the plaintiff does not have the
necessary evidence of intentional falsehood and loss causation: he
has already had two opportunities to amend the complaint and some
of the deficiencies identified in this order have been apparent
from the outset.  The court is loath to grant leave to amend where
the particulars of the amendment are unknown and the existing
record suggests futility."

L&L's Chairman and CEO, Dickson Lee commented, "We are very
pleased with the court's favorable ruling supporting L&L's motion
to dismiss.  I congratulate management's discipline to fight the
false accusations while remaining focused on growing the company
and shareholder value.  I believe that L&L is better positioned
and is to becoming a leader in the coal sector of a growing
Chinese economy."


LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved in September 2012 a stipulation and proposed
order submitted by parties dismissing with prejudice a class
action lawsuit against Logitech International S.A., according to
the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Logitech International S.A. and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares between
October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011.  The complaint relates to
Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011, that its results for
fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  The action was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on
July 28, 2011.  The California Court appointed a lead plaintiff on
October 27, 2011.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
January 9, 2012, which expanded the alleged class period to
between October 28, 2010, and September 22, 2011.  On July 13,
2012, the California Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, with leave to amend.  On September 28,
2012, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed order
submitted by the parties dismissing the case with prejudice.


NEW YORK CITY: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------
According to CBS News, New York City is facing a class-action
lawsuit.  The city is accused of rigging the lights to catch more
drivers and write more tickets.

CBS News reported recently on those red light cameras that snap a
picture of your license plate if you run the light.

They're so-called "gotcha" cameras, mounted at intersections.
Their photos catch and help ticket drivers running red lights.
New York City had them first in 1998.

Robert Sinclair, AAA motor club New York spokesperson said, "Red
light cameras are to prevent the very dangerous, so called, T-Bone
crashes, where you have the front of vehicle running into the side
of another.  We are in favor, in concept, of the red light
cameras, but they have to be done to certain engineering
criteria."

By federal law, drivers have to have enough time to get through a
yellow light -- three seconds at the typical 30-mile-per-hour
intersection.

Back in October, engineers at AAA New York discovered a problem.
At some city intersections with the cameras, the yellow lights
were almost a half-second too fast.

Red light violators who later had to pay up now feel set up.  Mr.
Sinclair said, "Well, when the amber lights are too short, people
are getting cited, we think, unfairly.  If you're timing them too
short, then it just becomes a revenue enhancement tool and it
erodes support for a red-light camera program."

Brian Hughes paid a $50 fine after a camera caught him running a
light in Manhattan in 2010.  Mr. Hughes said, "A $50 ticket, might
not seem like a lot to some people, but to me it's a lot at the
end of the day, and so it makes me overly hesitant when I drive."

Mr. Hughes is part of a class-action suit, alleging fraud against
the City of New York and its 150 red light cameras.  They helped
generate more than $235 million in fine revenue during the last
five years -- $47 million in the last year alone.

Attorney Joseph Santoli said, "The city, in this case, and many
other municipalities have a great incentive to shorten the
duration of the yellow lights."

The New York City Department of Transportation in a statement
said, "There has been no substantiation that any red-light cameras
in this report were improperly timed or led to any violation being
issued incorrectly."

But this past June, New Jersey suspended its entire red light
camera program.  Turns out, 63 of its 85 cameras gave drivers too
little time to make the yellow light, as required by state law.

"It's making it worse drivers," one driver told New York CBS
station WCBS.  "Because if you stop short, you're gonna get hit in
the back.  So you gotta take the light and then you're got to pay
for a ticket.  Bad!"

In the U.S., 540 communities use red light cameras.

But with their lawsuit, as many as 6 million ticketed New York
drivers have a message for the city: not so fast.


NEW YORK LIFE: Sued by Insurance Agents Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avraham Gold, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New York Life Insurance Co., New Life Insurance and
Annuity Corp., NYLife Insurance Co. of Arizona, NYLife Securities
LLC (f/k/a NYLife Securities, Inc.), John Does 1-50 (said names
being fictitious individuals), and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-50 (said
names being fictitious companies, partnerships, joint ventures
and/or corporations), Case No. 653923/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
November 14, 2012) is brought on behalf of all insurance agents,
who were or are employed by New York Life in the state of New York
at any time from April 2, 2003, through the date of judgment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his and Class
members' rights under the New York Labor Law and its enacting
regulations in the New York State's Official Compilation of Codes,
Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") by, among other things, failing to
pay Class members any overtime compensation, which is required
under Section 142-2.2 of the NYCRR.  He adds that the Defendants
also violated the New York Labor Law by failing to pay Class
members the minimum wage for every hour worked during periods when
a Class member earned few or no commissions.

Mr. Gold is a resident in Kings County, New York.  He was employed
by New York Life as an insurance agent and registered
representative of the Defendants, who provided financial advice to
clients in connection with the Defendants' sales of insurance,
securities and other, often complex and sophisticated financial
products.

New York Life Insurance Company is a mutual company organized in
the state of New York.  New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation is a Delaware corporation.  NYLIFE Insurance Company
of Arizona is an Arizona corporation with its statutory home
office in Scottsdale, Arizona.  New York Life Insurance and
Annuity and NYLIFE Insurance are wholly owned domestic insurance
subsidiaries of the New York Life Insurance Company.  NYLIFE
Securities, previously known as NYLIFE Securities Inc., is a
Delaware limited liability company and is a wholly owned indirect
subsidiary of New York Life Insurance Company.  NYLIFE Securities
LLC is a registered broker-dealer.  Throughout the Class Period,
New York Life maintained offices in New York.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants and the ABC Corporations are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Halebian, Esq.
          Adam C. Mayes, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          Midtown Office
          317 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 208-6806
          E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com

               - and -

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, P.C.
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 921-4110
          Facsimile: (212) 921-4249
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN
          217 Broadway, Suite 606
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 619-0261
          Facsimile: (212) 385-2707
          E-mail: kenneth@elanlaw.com


NUFARM: Uncertainty Remains Following Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Weekly reports that Maurice Blackburn has settled a
shareholder class action with agricultural company Nufarm for
AUD46.6 million, up from AUD43.5 million announced in August,
avoiding a potential court ruling on indirect causation and loss
calculation, but Jason Geisker, principal at Maurice Blackburn,
told Lawyers Weekly that with so few shareholder class actions
making it to final judgment there is no guidance on assessing
damages for an alleged breach of continuous disclosure
obligations.

Mr. Geisker believes this may be one of the reasons Nufarm agreed
to pay an extra AUD3.1 million to facilitate a settlement
relatively early on in the proceedings.

"It becomes very risky for the parties to go forward to a trial
and final judgment not knowing what the ultimate outcome will be
on the law and not knowing which way the judge will go on the
approach to loss," he said.

More than 3000 Nufarm shareholders, including investment banks,
super funds and 'mum and dad' investors, alleged the company's
profit forecast of between AUD110 million and AUD130 million for
2009-10 was misleading or deceptive.  Shares dropped from AUD5.35
per share to AUD3.25 per share in one week after the company
reduced its profit guidance to between AUD55 million and AUD65
million.

Mr. Geisker believes claimants should be able to rely on indirect
causation when arguing that misleading or deceptive conduct
resulted in shares being purchased at an inflated price.  But
Australian law's position on this issue has not been determined by
the courts, he added.

While Mr. Geisker claimed uncertainty doesn't work in any party's
favor, if an Australian court rejects indirect causation then
plaintiffs may face the tougher task of proving they relied on the
misleading or deceptive information.

There aren't rigid rules on loss calculation either.  Generally,
loss is the difference between the 'true value' of the shares at
the time of purchase and the actual price paid but, according to
Mr. Geisker, in some circumstances it is more appropriate for loss
to be calculated as the difference between the price paid for the
shares and whatever is 'left in hand' upon a sale of the shares.

Other loss measures have included: the difference between the
price at which the shareholder bought their interest and the
market price that would have prevailed but for the contraventions,
and the loss of opportunity to achieve a reasonable rate of return
on the money used to purchase the interest in the securities.

"The numbers can be vastly different depending on the loss
calculation, so it's prudent for companies to try and resolve the
litigation if they can rather than take the risk that they're
wrong about their view of loss and causation and end up paying
significantly more," said Mr. Geisker.

If companies heed Mr. Geisker's warning, it may be some time
before a method of loss calculation is supported by case law.

"If you're an investor it's not in your interest to have your
money tied up in the courts for a long wait for what might be the
same or less return . . . [and] even a final judgment would
probably not determine the rights of the parties, with appeals
likely all the way up to the High Court."

Even though Nufarm, by settling, avoided an admission of fault,
Mr. Geisker claimed that class actions still act as a financial
deterrent against companies engaging in unlawful conduct.

Two class action claims were commenced against Nufarm -- one by
Maurice Blackburn in 2010, the other by Slater and Gordon in early
2011.  These actions were consolidated in August 2011.  They have
since been jointly prosecuted by the two law firms, which
Mr. Geisker described as a "novel process".


ONE WORLD: Judge Narrows Coconut Water Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Nov. 30 trimmed claims from a consumer class action accusing
One World Co. LLC of overstating the electrolyte content of its
O.N.E. brand coconut water, dismissing a lab report on which
plaintiffs based warranty allegations.

Judge Cormac J. Carney determined that plaintiffs Patrick Vital
and Russell Marchweka have failed to provide evidence that a
ConsumerLab.com LLC report on which their claims are based was
conducted in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act.


POPULAR COMMUNITY: Sued Over Imposition of Overdraft Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Valle and Wilfredo Valle, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Popular Community Bank f/k/a
Banco Popular North America a/k/a Banco Popular North America,
Case No. 653936/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 14, 2012) challenges
the practices of Popular concerning its imposition of overdraft
loan interest and fees on customer deposit accounts.

The Plaintiffs allege that Popular engages in unlawful methods,
acts, practices and conduct by making "courtesy" overdraft loans
to and imposing Overdraft Charges on its deposit customers without
prior customer approval.  They add that Popular failed to disclose
prior to the completion of the transaction that ATM withdrawals
and electronic debit card transactions would cause the customer's
account to become overdrawn and subject to its Overdraft Charges
and loans.

Josefina Valle and her son, Wilfredo Valle, are residents of
Bronx, New York.  They have maintained deposit accounts with
Popular in New York, including a Popular Relationship Savings
account, which was accessible using a Popular-issued ATM/debit
card.

Popular is a New York-chartered trust company or banking
corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of
the state of New York, and is headquartered in Broadway, New York.
Popular engages in the business of consumer and commercial banking
within New York, with additional branch operations in California,
Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Guglielmo, Esq.
          Joseph Cohen, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: guglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  jcohen@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Erin G. Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          156 South Main Street
          PO Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@.scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          TUSA P.C.
          1979 Marcus Avenue, Suite 210
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 622-2212
          Facsimile: (516) 706-1373
          E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com


PREMIER FOODS: Framework Set for Bread Price-Fixing Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nickolaus Bauer, writing for Mail & Guardian, reports that the
framework has been set for the launching of class action lawsuits
within the South African legal system after a landmark ruling was
handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein last
week.

Legal experts and practitioners on Dec. 3 hailed the court's
overturning of a 2011 Western Cape High Court decision not to
provide a class certificate to litigants seeking a class action
legal case against bread cartels found guilty of price fixing in
2007.

Premier Foods, Tiger Brands, and Pioneer Foods were all fingered
for collusion in setting the price of retail bread in the Western
Cape, after then independent bread distributor Imraahn Mukaddam
blew the whistle on the trio's crooked activities.

A week before Christmas in 2006 three separate bakeries linked to
each respective company simultaneously raised bread prices by 35c
per white loaf and 37c per brown loaf.

After an exhaustive investigation by the competition commission,
all three companies were slapped with multimillion-rand fines for
their roles in the price fixing.

In law, a class action is a form of lawsuit whereby a group of
people can collectively bring a claim to court against a single or
group of defendants in the hopes of them being sued.

Until now there was no monetary or legal basis in South Africa for
those personally or professionally affected by collusion to be
reimbursed or compensated.

But Mr. Mukaddam -- now coordinator for the Western Cape consumer
forum -- along with representatives from Black Sash, the
Children's Resource Centre, the Congress of South African Trade
Unions, the National Consumer Forum and several individual bread
consumers are hoping this ruling will change that.

Mr. Mukaddam told the Mail & Guardian that while any monetary
incentive realized through a class action lawsuit will be managed
by a trust that will aim to support small to medium bakeries in
the Western Cape, as well as uplifting poor people through feeding
schemes, this legal battle was more about holding big business to
account for their actions.

"This isn't just about the money.  It's about setting a precedent
whereby we tell companies that consumers can't be taken for
granted and taken advantage of ever again," he said.

Dali Mpofu, secretary general of Advocates for Transformation,
said the group's crusade will go a long way in determining the
future of class action legal cases in the future.

"While the general view of our courts has been to encourage class
action lawsuits, there has never been a firm legal precedent set
with a view to bringing them into action, and this ruling could
change that," he said.

Mr. Mpofu added the case has an opportunity to set a
constitutional precedent in terms of upholding the rights of South
African citizens.

"The Constitution introduced the concept of rights to legal
recourse in this country, so this has the potential to deepen the
reach of the Constitution by actually seeing it in action," he
said.

But while the introduction of class action framework to the South
African legal system could be seen as a positive move, it brings
with it possible challenges and problems too.

The abuses that have arisen in the United States' legal system
with mass and class actions have been largely driven by the
potential payoff for not only the litigants affected by the
actions of those being sued, but also by their legal
representative.

A study by the research firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin estimated
that class action litigation system in the US amounts to $252-
billion annually -- putting massive pressure on companies forced
to allocate billions in potential legal fees every year.

Additionally, exploitations that have arisen in the US with class
actions have resulted in massive fees being awarded to lawyers as
the more plaintiffs a lawyer can recruit, the greater the
potential payoff.

Chris Hart, chief economist at Investment Solutions, said that
while class action lawsuits provided the opportunity to challenge
"otherwise untouchable monoliths", it could be abused.

"It's all fair and well allowing this into law to promote good
service delivery and performance.  But how can we assure it
doesn't become a vehicle for extortion as it has done in other
international legal systems?" Mr. Hart told the M&G.

Mr. Hart said that if class action legal challenges become more
common in South Africa, they would have to be monitored to ward
off exploitation.

But Mr. Mpofu dismissed Mr. Hart's suggestion, saying the
positives of this development outweighed the negatives.

"Maybe the floodgates should be opened," he said.

"We can't justify a conservative approach to the law when the
access to legal recourse and justice is enshrined in our
Constitution."


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Defends Class Suits Brought by Stockholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc. is defending class action
lawsuits brought by stockholders, according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In 2012, certain stockholders of the Company filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.  The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties
to the stockholders and, as a result, unjustly enriched the
Company and the individual defendants.  The lawsuits further
allege that the breaches of fiduciary duty led certain
stockholders to acquire additional stock and caused the
stockholders to suffer a loss in share value, all measured in some
manner by reference to the Company's 2012 offering price when it
listed its shares on the New York Stock Exchange.  The lawsuits
seek unspecified damages and other relief.  Based on its initial
review of the complaints, the Company believes the lawsuits to be
without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.  While
the resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with
certainty, management believes, based on currently available
information, that the final outcomes of these matters will not
have a material effect on the financial statements of the Company.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Rehear Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied in October
2012 a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in connection
with the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit against
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's
November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for its
February 2008 public offering of common stock (the Stock
Offering).  An additional purported securities class action
lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 20, 2009.  By order of the Court dated
March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action.  On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September
8, 2009.  On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to
amend.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
January 27, 2010.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the
results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate
fostamatinib (then known as R788).  The plaintiff sought damages,
including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the
Stock Offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or
equitable relief for purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between December 13, 2007, and February 9, 2009,
including purchasers in the Stock Offering.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February
16, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend.  On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice
informing the Court that it will not amend its complaint and
requested that the Court enter a final judgment.  On October 28,
2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment requesting entry
of such judgment in favor of the defendants.  On November 1, 2010,
judgment was entered dismissing the action.  The plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on November 15, 2010, to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals (the Circuit Court), appealing the district court's
order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed its opening brief on
February 23, 2011.  The Company filed its opposition brief on
April 8, 2011.  On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed its reply
brief.

On February 17, 2012, the Circuit Court heard oral arguments on
plaintiff's appeal.  On September 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint.  On
September 27, 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing
and rehearing en banc.  On October 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend
upon many unknown factors.  The outcome of the litigation is
necessarily uncertain and the Company could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of this lawsuit, and the
Company may not prevail.  Monitoring and defending legal actions
is time consuming for the Company's management and detracts from
its ability to fully focus its internal resources on its business
activities.  In addition, the Company may incur substantial legal
fees and costs in connection with the litigation.  The Company is
not currently able to estimate the possible cost to it from this
matter, if any, and the Company cannot be certain how long it may
take to resolve this matter or the possible amount of any damages
that the Company may be required to pay.  The Company has not
established any reserves for any potential liability relating to
this lawsuit.

A reserve may be required in the future due to new developments
with respect to the pending lawsuit, patent claims or changes in
approach such as a change in or establishment of a settlement
strategy in dealing with these matters, when a loss becomes
probable and is estimable.


SINO-FOREST CORP: E&Y Faces OSC Allegations Following Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Koven and Barbara Shecter, writing for Financial Post,
report that the Ontario Securities Commission has targeted one of
Canada's biggest accounting firms, bypassing the industry's
watchdog and taking the lead in a crackdown on "gatekeepers" of
foreign companies listed on Canadian stock exchanges.

A nine-page statement of allegations filed on Dec. 3 accuses Ernst
& Young LLP of failing to meet industry standards through its
audits of timber firm Sino-Forest Corp. and failing to perform
sufficient work to verify the existence and ownership of Sino's
most significant assets.

It also emerged on Dec. 3 that Ernst & Young has agreed to pay a
record $117-million to settle a shareholder class-action lawsuit
related to the Sino case.  It is the biggest class-action
settlement with an auditor in Canadian history.

The two events put E&Y's oversight of Sino-Forest in the
spotlight.  The disgraced Canadian timber company was worth more
than $6-billion before it was felled last year by allegations that
it overstated its timber assets in China.

Following a regulatory probe last spring of two dozen companies
listed in Canada with substantial operations overseas, the OSC
pinpointed shortcomings among "gatekeepers" such as auditors and
underwriters.  The move against Ernst & Young shows the regulator
is putting its own muscle behind its efforts to beef up scrutiny
of emerging-market companies.

"A major focus [of the Sino investigation] has been on whether
gatekeepers such as auditors and other corporate advisors properly
performed their role in protecting investors," said Tom Atkinson,
director of enforcement at the OSC.  "If auditors fail to abide by
Canadian auditing standards and securities laws, we will hold them
accountable."

None of the allegations has been proven.

For its part, Ernst & Young issued a statement on Dec. 3 that said
it co-operated with the OSC on the Sino-Forest investigation and
is confident its work was conducted in accordance with auditing
and professional standards.

"The evidence we will present to the OSC will show that Ernst &
Young Canada did extensive audit work to verify ownership and
existence of Sino-Forest's timber assets," the statement said.

Securities lawyers say it is rare, though not unprecedented, for
the regulator to go after a "gatekeeper" such as an underwriter or
auditor.  Two previous OSC enforcement actions that targeted
auditors, one dating back to the 1990, were both settled.

In the E&Y case filed on Dec. 3, the commission claims it has
found significant evidence that the firm did not go far enough to
prove that Sino-Forest's stated timber holdings exist.  For
example, the OSC alleges that E&Y never obtained two key elements
of Sino's purchase contracts: the villagers' letter of
authorization and the certificate of forest proprietorship.  The
precise location of the forestry assets was also not described in
the purchase contracts.

"Both of these deficiencies should have prompted Ernst & Young to
make further enquiries of Sino-Forest management and to perform
further audit procedures," the OSC said.

E&Y also relied too heavily on the valuation work done on Sino's
assets by a Chinese firm called Poyry Forest Industry Ltd., the
OSC said.  It believes E&Y did not do enough work to confirm that
the plantations Poyry visited were actually owned by Sino-Forest.

There is evidence that E&Y staff were concerned about the issue.
Documents filed by the OSC include an e-mail exchange between two
E&Y auditors who both said that Poyry "could show us trees
anywhere and we would not know the difference."

The OSC is also concerned about the audit team itself.  It noted
that several of the senior E&Y partners involved in the Sino-
Forest audits did not speak Chinese, and the firm did not
translate many of the key Sino-Forest documents into English.

Brian Hunt, chief executive of the Canadian Public Accountability
Board, which inspects firms for audit quality, declined to comment
on the OSC action against E&Y.  "It's before the Commission now,"
he said.

Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer at Siskinds LLP who was involved in the
class action lawsuit, said he believes the $117-million settlement
with E&Y is more than double the size of any other reached in
Canada with an auditing firm.

"It had to do primarily with the facts underlying the case and
E&Y's desire to move on and not be embroiled in years of
extraordinarily risky and costly litigation," Mr. Lascaris said in
an interview.

"To the credit of E&Y, it came to the table and paid a very
substantial level of compensation relatively quickly,"
Mr. Lascaris said.

In a case of interesting timing, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Dec. 3 accused Chinese affiliates of five major
global accounting firms of violating securities laws.  The SEC
says their Chinese affiliates refused to produce audit documents
in connection with fraud investigations into unnamed companies.

Business and audit practices in China are the common thread in the
North American regulatory actions, said Jacob Frenkel, a partner
at law firm Shulman Rogers and a former SEC enforcement lawyer.
He said regulators in both Canada and the U.S. are cracking down
on "reliance on outsourced professionals" and local affiliates.

"These practices have been industry-wide," Mr. Frenkel said,
adding that "unfortunately it's not until something goes wrong on
a large scale" that regulators tend take action.

The OSC's action against E&Y is the second enforcement action
taken by the regulator in the case.  On May 22, the OSC accused
Sino-Forest and former senior executives of fraud.  Those
proceedings are ongoing.


STOP & SHOP: Recalls Veggie Patch Ultimate Meatless Burgers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, following a recall by
Veggie Patch, announced it removed from sale packages of ultimate
meatless burgers due to possible contamination by Listeria
monocytogenes.

The following product is included in this recall:

   * Veggie Patch Ultimate Meatless Burger, UPC 61012900211,
     9 oz., sell by date of January 12, 2013

Stop & Shop has received no reports of illnesses to date.
Customers who have purchased the product should discard any unused
portions and bring their purchase receipt to Stop & Shop for a
full refund.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature.  Consumption of
food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.  Healthy
people rarely contract listeriosis.  However, listeriosis can
cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.
Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well
as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened
immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers looking for additional information on the recall may
call Veggie Patch customer service at 1-888-698-3444.  In addition,
customers may call Stop & Shop Customer Service at (800) 767-7772
for more information.  Customers can also visit the Stop & Shop
Web site at http://www.stopandshop.com/

                        About Stop & Shop

The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC employs approximately
62,000 associates and operates more than 400 stores throughout
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York,
and New Jersey.  The Company helps support local communities fight
hunger, combat childhood cancer and promote general health and
wellness -- with emphasis on children's educational and support
programs.  In its commitment to be a sustainable company, Stop &
Shop is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and EPA's
Smart Way program; has been awarded LEED (EB) certifications for
50 of its existing stores; and has been recognized by the EPA for
the superior energy management of its stores.  Stop & Shop is an
Ahold company.  To learn more about Stop & Shop, visit
http://www.stopandshop.com/


UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans Join Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Christoffersen, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that a Vietnam veterans advocacy group says in a federal lawsuit
in Connecticut the military has failed to correct the wrongful
discharges of thousands of veterans suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder.

The 65,000-member Vietnam Veterans of America on Dec. 3 joined a
proposed class action lawsuit against the Army, Navy and Air
Force.

The lawsuit was filed last year by a veteran from New Haven.  It
says Vietnam veterans suffered PTSD before the condition was
recognized and were discharged under other-than-honorable
conditions that made them ineligible for disability compensation
and other benefits.

The U.S. attorney's office says it's reviewing the matter and will
respond in court.  A Department of Defense spokeswoman says the
agency is committed to addressing concerns related to PTSD and has
conducted assessments of service members at military treatment
facilities.


URS Corporation: Expects 2013 Ruling in Hurricane Katrina Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is expected in 2013 in some of the class action
lawsuits related to Hurricane Katrina, according to URS
Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
28, 2012.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.  Fifty-nine personal
injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants,
including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages plus
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs are residents and property
owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.

All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District,
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were
also named as defendants along with WGI Ohio.  At this time WGI
Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.
These 59 lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not
involving WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio
performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and
floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.  WGI
Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on
grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.  On
December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
("Court of Appeals") on April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010,
the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary
judgment decision and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case
back to the District Court for further litigation.  On August 1,
2011, the District Court decided that the government contractor
immunity defense would not be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but
would be an issue for appeal.  Five of the cases were tried in
District Court from September 12, 2012, through October 3, 2012.
A decision is expected in 2013.

WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, WGI Ohio cannot provide assurance that it will be
successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time
primarily due to the unknown number of individual plaintiffs who
are actually asserting claims against WGI Ohio; the uncertainty
regarding the nature and amount of each individual plaintiff's
damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal theories and factual
bases that plaintiffs may present and their resolution by courts
or regulators; and uncertainty about the plaintiffs' claims, if
any, that might survive certain key motions of the Company's
affiliate, as well as a number of additional factors.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits OK of Indirect Purchasers Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is awaiting court
approval of its settlement of claims in an antitrust complaint
filed by indirect purchasers over Wellbutrin XL(R), 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 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company's parent Biovail
Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the
latter two of which are referred to here as "GSK") seeking damages
and alleging that Biovail and GSK took actions to improperly delay
FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL(R).  In late May
and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect purchaser
class actions were also filed against Biovail and GSK in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations.
After motion practice, the complaints were consolidated, resulting
in a lead direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action,
and the Court ultimately denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaints.

The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class
certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
Wellbutrin XL(R) directly from any of the defendants at any time
during the period of November 14, 2005, through August 31, 2009.
Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and federal government entities.  Further excluded
from the class are persons or entities who have not purchased
generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R) during the class period after
the introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R).  The
Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants have
asked the Third Circuit to review the class certification.

After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one
of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining
claim.  Following the summary judgment decision, the Company
entered into binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs'
classes to resolve all existing claims against the Company.  The
total settlement amount payable is $49.25 million. In addition,
the Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice
costs.  These charges were recognized in the second quarter of
2012, within Legal settlements in the consolidated statements of
income (loss).  The settlements require Court approval.  The
direct purchaser class filed its motion for preliminary approval
of its settlement on July 23, 2012.  The hearing on final approval
of that settlement was on November 7, 2012.  The indirect
purchaser class is expected to file its motion for preliminary
approval in the fourth quarter of 2012, with a hearing on final
approval of that settlement likely to be held in the first quarter
of 2013.


WET SEAL: Guilty of Employee Discrimination, EEOC Probes Show
-------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources Journal reports that Wet Seal, the fashion
retailer, continues to be beset with problems.  The U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has said that investigations
have confirmed that the clothier discriminated against a former
African American store manager.  It said that Nicole Cogdell, a
former employee who worked at one of the company's stores in
Pennsylvania, quit work, as the working environment became
increasingly intimidating and conditions so unendurable that she
was left with no other choice.

The commission found further evidence that Wet Seal corporate
managers were not guarded in their views that to ensure that the
company had good bottom lines, it was imperative that they
retained workers with "the Armani look."

The "Armani look" purportedly referring to the attractive features
of its models, who were typically blond, thin and blue-eyed, and
marketed by the youthful fashion label created by Italian designer
Giorgio Armani.  The EEOC said it would look for "a just
resolution of this matter" through negotiations.

So much so that one top-ranking executive even sent an e-mail to
his subordinates that the high proportion of African American
workers at the company was a "huge issue."

This proven bias against an entire group of its African American
workers could ensure that the firm faces more discrimination
lawsuits, including more class-action lawsuits that could entail
embarrassing censure and huge financial penalties.

The lawsuit accuses Wet Seal of refusing promotions and pay to its
black employees to harass them and perhaps provoke them into
leaving.  Moreover, it says that they showed a distinct preference
for employing white workers who suited the company's image more.

Ms. Cogdell, who is one of the plaintiffs, claims that she was
fired after a  senior vice president for store operations during a
visit to the company expressed her opinion that the manager should
have "blond hair and blue eyes."

ReNika Moore, one of the lawyers representing Ms. Cogdell, said
that the commission's findings would be valuable evidence in court
and can be used as evidence in the lawsuit and that they would be
using it.  The suit was filed on behalf of more than 250
management-level employees at Wet Seal.

The company could well have done without this new problem, given
that it has had a very turbulent year when sales declined
considerably and their chief executive had to go as also boardroom
tangles necessitated replacing the chairman and three board
directors.

Wet Seal maintains that Ms. Cogdell resigned of her own free will
and hence the need to take any unfavorable employment action
against her did not arise.  However, the commission said that the
abrupt and hasty termination of many African-Americans at several
stores in Pennsylvania had created an unreceptive, antagonistic
atmosphere were continuing to work was not feasible and which
forced Ms. Cogdell to quit.  This in the view of the agency was
equivalent to being fired.

Ironically, the commission  revealed, prior to being forced out,
she was regarded as a valuable employee receiving high ratings in
running the King of Prussia store, which was one of Wet Seal's
better run stores, ranking eighth amongst it upwards of five
hundreds stores in the country.

Both her regional and district managers said that she possessed
"great energy" and had the ability to manage other managers and
others under her care to fulfill their responsibilities with
diligence and punctually.

Realizing the seriousness of the matter, the company released a
statement saying that it was committed to a diverse workplace that
provided equal opportunity without prejudice or bias and that the
new leadership was committed to ensuring that its workplace was
free from unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Moreover, it said that it had begun to voluntarily collaborate
with the EEOC on a program designed to promote diversity.

Ms. Cogdell was adamant to see that justice was done and said that
it was intolerable that such a big company would so openly
discriminate African-American employees.

"But I wasn't the only victim of Wet Seal's discrimination, and I
will not stop fighting for justice for all the victims," she said.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Faced 1,081 Cases at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC faced 1,081
unresolved asbestos-related cases 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 Company states: "We have been named as a premises defendant in
a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. In the
past, these cases typically involved multiple plaintiffs bringing
actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints have not
indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against which
defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred or what
injuries each plaintiff claimed. Rarely do the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. These facts, which
would be central to any estimate of probable loss, generally have
been learned only through discovery.

"Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant premises, the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts
responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and
payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our eighteen-year
experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

"We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As
of September 30, 2012, we had an accrued liability of $10 million
relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of $10
million relating to our indemnity protection with respect to these
cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our
accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would
not be material to our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount
or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2012.

"Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not
subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However,
we may be entitled to insurance or other recovery in some of these
cases.  At September 30, 2012, the Company was a premises
defendant to 41 unresolved cases that are not subject to
indemnification.

"We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $82,000 and $442,000 during
the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
As of September 30, 2012, we had an accrual of $225,000 relating
to these cases and we expect insurance proceeds to offset this
cost. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our
accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would
not be material to our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount
or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2012."

Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company
operates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC
(Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a range
of chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to a
range of consumer and industrial customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Accrues $473MM in Q3 PI Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company has accrued $473 million in the three months
ended September 30, 2012, for asbestos and other personal injury
matters, 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 is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

During the third quarters of 2012 and 2011, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable. In the third quarter of 2012, management recorded a
decrease in expense of $15 million due primarily to favorable
settlements. In the third quarter of 2011, management determined
that the liability remained appropriate and no change was
recorded. The Company plans to update its study again in the third
quarter of 2013.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95% of the future
unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15
and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway Company is the principal operating subsidiary of
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF).  BNSF Railway transports
a range of products and commodities, including the transportation
of consumer products, coal, industrial products and agricultural
products, derived from manufacturing, agricultural and natural
resource industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 96,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation, as of September 30, 2012, had 96,000 pending
claims filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury
as a result of exposure to 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.

ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined
as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These
claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our
subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

As of September 30, 2012, there were 96,000 pending claims against
ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal
courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

In the nine-month period ended September 30, 2012, 11,000 pending
claims were dismissed, approximately 10,000 of which were filed in
Mississippi and were inactive. As of September 30, 2012,
approximately 29,000 claims pending against the Company have been
placed on inactive dockets in Mississippi.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a
large majority of claims pending against the Company have been
placed on inactive dockets (including in Mississippi) because the
plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our
experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved
claims are dismissed without any payment from the Company.
Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims
have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes
dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as
well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits
will be filed in the future, and ITT will aggressively defend or
seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

The Company states: "We decreased our estimated undiscounted
asbestos liability, including legal fees, by $75.8 million,
reflecting a decrease in costs that the Company estimates will be
incurred to resolve all pending claims, as well as unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. The decrease
in our estimated liability is a result of several developments,
including an expectation of lower defense costs relative to
indemnities paid over the projection period and a reduction in the
assumed rate of increase in future average settlement values.
These favorable factors were offset in part by an increasing
number of cases expected to be adjudicated, increased activity in
several higher-cost jurisdictions, an increase in average
settlement values and an increase in lung cancer activity.

"Further, in the third quarter of 2012, the Company reduced its
estimated asbestos-related assets by $78.7 million. The decrease
in our asbestos-related assets is primarily a result of the
decrease in the estimated liability and, to a lesser extent,
reductions in expected recovery rates from certain insurers,
offset in part by benefits from the recently executed Settlement
Agreement.

"During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, we received a
distribution totaling $8.3 million from certain insolvent
insurers. As a result, we reduced our asbestos related asset by
$2.5 million and recognized $5.8 million in continuing operations
as a reduction to the net asbestos charge for the second quarter.

"In September 2012, we executed an agreement (the Settlement
Agreement) with the entity (the counterparty) that acquired a
business disposed by ITT in 1986. The Settlement Agreement
accelerates the cost sharing provisions of a previous agreement
with the counterparty. Prior to executing the Settlement
Agreement, claims subject to the previous cost sharing agreement
where ITT was not a named defendant were excluded from the count
of pending claims; however, our recorded asbestos liability
included an estimate of exposure to all claims subject to the cost
sharing agreement.

"Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the counterparty
assumed full responsibility for all pending and future asbestos-
related claims filed against the disposed business, whether they
were served on ITT or the counterparty. However, if the disposed
business and other ITT entities were both named in a claim, ITT
continues to be responsible for defending the ITT portion(s) of
the claim and thus those cases remain in the Company's count of
pending claims and in our estimated asbestos liability. ITT also
agreed that certain insurance rights will remain with the pending
and future claims filed against the disposed business, benefiting
the counterparty.

"As a result of the Settlement Agreement, ITT's asbestos-related
liabilities were reduced by $245.2 million, while the asbestos-
related assets were reduced by $233.8 million. The reduction in
the asbestos liability results from eliminating the liability for
all asbestos claims filed and estimated to be filed over the next
10 years against the disposed business. In addition, under the
Settlement Agreement, ITT will receive a $10.0 million cash
payment from the counterparty for past and future costs which
would otherwise have been paid by the surrendered insurance.
Income from discontinued operations includes $5.6 million of the
reduction in the net asbestos liability resulting from the
Settlement Agreement with the remainder recorded in continuing
operations.

"We estimate that we will be able to recover 47% of the asbestos
indemnity and defense costs for pending claims as well as
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years
from our insurers.

"Annual net cash outflows, net of tax benefits, are projected to
average $10 million to $20 million over the next five years, as
compared to an annual average of $10 million over the past three
years, and increase to an average of approximately $35 million to
$45 million, over the remainder of the projection period."

ITT Corporation designs and manufactures engineered critical
components and customized technology solutions for energy
infrastructure, electronics, aerospace, and transportation
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
At September 30, 2012, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 15,047  plaintiffs, which is a net
decrease of 93 claims from those previously reported.  In each
instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants.  The
asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most
cases for unspecified sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company
has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been
resolved as follows: 41,117 of those claims were dismissed, 20
were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff
verdicts (two of which are being appealed), one was resolved by
agreement for an immaterial amount and 610 were decided in favor
of the Company following summary judgment motions.

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.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the design, manufacture, and sale of welding, cutting, and
brazing products worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 Pending Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company continues to defend 15 asbestos-related
lawsuits 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 Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits in the ordinary course that are incidental to our
operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of
monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities. At September 30, 2012, there were
approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which we are one of many
defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in
the State of Mississippi.

"The subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related lawsuits intend
to defend themselves vigorously and, based on the information
available to us at this time, we do not expect the outcome to have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. However, we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at
September 30, 2012."

Parker Drilling Company (Parker) is a provider of contract
drilling and drilling-related services operating in 11 countries.
The Company has operated in over 50 foreign countries and the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faced 4,443 Claims at Oct. 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending 4,443 asbestos-related
claims as of October 17, 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: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

"We were defending 4,443 claims as of October 17, 2012.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

"Exposure and disease information sufficient meaningfully to
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of October 17, 2012, we
had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,353 claims.
The total cost of resolving all claims was $8,646,000. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company
has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should
be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims,
as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to
access.

"Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a
separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany
is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,873
claims as of October 17, 2012.

"We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the
assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among
other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its
parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer
fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none
of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not
manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not
believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of October 17, 2012,
Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,727
claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers
initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and
defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the
standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and
defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity
and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these
proceedings.

"We do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the
range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims.

"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from
Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the
Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a
number of actions.

"Although we do not believe that a meaningful estimate of a range
of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on
our understanding of the insurance policies available, how
settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our
settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the
Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims
filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate
any material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance
limits. Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on
currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of
the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect
on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of
future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in
claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional
claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is
inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent
primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by
juries."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by
insurance, subject to applicable deductibles.

However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent
insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements
and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are
tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions
throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date
have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled
for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-
related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

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.

IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells
pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and
engineered products to customers in a variety of markets
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Currently Defends 29 Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. is currently defending 29 pending
asbestos cases, 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: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has 72 pending silica cases and 29 pending
asbestos cases. To date, 1,394 silica cases and 10 asbestos cases
have been dismissed. Four new asbestos cases were filed in the
third quarter of 2012.  Most of these claims do not provide
adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that
the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such
liability, if any.  Additional claims of this nature may be made
against the Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time management
anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any,
and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material
effect on its financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date.  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense
of these cases since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the
majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to
the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with
the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 29 pending
asbestos cases, at least 25 allege liability based solely on
products sold prior to the initial public offering, and for which
the Company is therefore entitled to full indemnification pursuant
to such agreements. Our experience has been that the Company is
not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company
does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these
lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a range of
specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products
and supporting systems and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faced 2,155 Cases at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at September 30, 2012, faced
approximately 2,155 outstanding cases for which it may be
responsible for any related liabilities, 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 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof.  At September 30, 2012, approximately 2,155 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through September
30, 2012, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately
$12.8 million.  We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a
fixed amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with
certain asbestos-related claims.  Under the policy currently in
effect, we have submitted claims to our insurance carrier and have
received $0.9 million in reimbursement for settlement claims and
defense costs with a nominal amount remaining under the policy.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study performed by an independent actuarial firm with
expertise in assessing asbestos-related liabilities, our
settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and
results of settlement discussions.  As is our accounting policy,
we engage actuarial consultants with experience in assessing
asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim
liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in the study considered: (1) historical data
available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our
recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the
future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4)
an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2012.  The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $27.1 million to
$41.5 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was a $0.4 million decrease for the low end of
the range and a $25 million decrease for the high end of the
range.  The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects our actual experience over the past twelve months.  Based
on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other
available information considered by us, we concluded that no
amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely
than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the range
as the liability associated with future settlement payments
through 2058 in our consolidated financial statements.
Accordingly, an incremental $0.4 million provision in our
discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual in
September 2012 increasing the reserve to approximately $27.1
million. According to the updated study, legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated to range from $32.3 million to $57
million during the same period.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the
third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary.  At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position.

"We are responsible for certain future liabilities relating to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. In accordance
with our accounting policy, our most recent actuarial study as of
August 31, 2012 estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement
payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from $27.1 million to $41.5 million
for the period through 2058.  As a result, in September 2012 an
incremental $0.4 million provision in our discontinued operation
was added to the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to
approximately $27.1 million as of that date. Based on the
information contained in the actuarial study and all other
available information considered by us, we concluded that no
amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely
than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the range
as the liability associated with future settlement payments
through 2058 in our consolidated financial statements.  In
addition, according to the updated study, legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operation, are estimated to range from $32.3 million
to $57 million during the same period.  We will continue to
perform an annual actuarial analysis during the third quarter of
each year for the foreseeable future.  Based on this analysis and
all other available information, we will continue to reassess the
recorded liability and, if deemed necessary, record an adjustment
to the reserve, which will be reflected as a loss or gain from
discontinued operation.  The aforementioned estimated settlement
payments and legal costs do not reflect any limited coverage that
we may obtain pursuant to agreements with insurance carriers for
certain asbestos-related claims."

Standard Motor Products, Inc., is an independent manufacturer and
distributor of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the
automotive aftermarket industry, with a focus on the original
equipment service market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Plans to Update Study in 3rd Quarter 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, is party to a number of
personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have
been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for BNSF employees
was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam
locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950
and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure
from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by
1985.

BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the
number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim.
Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim
are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

During the third quarters of 2012 and 2011, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
BNSF to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In
the third quarter of 2012, management recorded a decrease in
expense of $15 million due primarily to favorable settlements. In
the third quarter of 2011, management determined that the
liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded. The
Company plans to update its study again in the third quarter of
2013.

Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will
record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary.

Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and
related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted
asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050.
The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing
period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed
population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985),
which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about
which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age,
hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF specific
data that was the basis for the study. BNSF projects that
approximately 60, 80 and 95% of the future unasserted asbestos
claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years,
respectively.

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.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF), formerly Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the freight rail
transportation business. BNSF Railway Company's (BNSF Railway)
rail operations consist, which is the principal operating
subsidiary, of the railroad systems in North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Still Defending Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. and its subsidiaries continue to defend asbestos-
related litigation, 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 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.  Each individual plaintiff was subsequently required to
file a separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff
complaints were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts.  We have or
may have an indirect interest in a total of 26 cases.  The
complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in
connection with drilling operations and have included allegations
of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law.  The
plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  In each of these cases, the complaints have
named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies
that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.  All of these cases are being governed for
discovery and trial setting by a single Case Management Order
entered by a Special Master appointed by the court to reside over
all the cases, and of the 14 cases in which we are a named
defendant, only one has been scheduled for trial and pre-trial
discovery, which will take place in 2013.

"The preliminary information available on these claims is not
sufficient to determine if there is an identifiable period for
alleged exposure to asbestos, whether any asbestos exposure in
fact occurred, the vessels potentially involved in the claims, or
the basis on which the plaintiffs would support claims that their
injuries were related to exposure to asbestos.  However, the
initial evidence available would suggest that we would have
significant defenses to liability and damages.  None of our
companies have manufactured or distributed drilling mud or
additives for same, and the handling of such additives by one of
our employees would be a relatively infrequent occurrence that
likely would have involved a non-asbestos product.  In 2011, the
Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act employer
defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages, and
this ruling has now been obtained in three of our 14 cases.  To
date, seven of the 769 cases have gone to trial against defendants
who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud additives.
None of these cases have involved an individual Jones Act
employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these cases.
Two of the cases resulted in defense verdicts, and one case ended
with a hung jury.  Four cases resulted in verdicts for the
plaintiff.  Because the jury awarded punitive damages, two of
these cases resulted in a substantial verdict in favor of the
plaintiff; however, both of these verdicts have since been vacated
by the trial court.  The first plaintiff verdict was vacated on
the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof.

"While the court's decision is consistent with our general
evaluation of the strength of these cases, it is currently being
reviewed on appeal.  The second plaintiff verdict was vacated
because the presiding judge was removed from hearing any asbestos
cases due to a conflict of interest, but when this case ultimately
went to trial earlier this year, it resulted in a defense verdict.
The two remaining plaintiff verdicts are under appeal by the
defendants.  We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously,
although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome.  We
historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although
we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities,
if any, arising out of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of
the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

"One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of
the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes.  The operating assets
of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in
1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the
insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers
and, either directly or indirectly as the beneficiary of a
qualified settlement fund, funding from settlements with insurers,
assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement
agreements with insurers, and funds received from the commutation
of certain insurance policies.  The subsidiary has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos.  As of September 30, 2012, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 895 lawsuits, some of which include
multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately
1,977 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  For many of these lawsuits,
we have not been provided with sufficient information from the
plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have
claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or
the nature of their alleged injuries.  The first of the asbestos-
related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990.
Through September 30, 2012, the costs incurred to resolve claims,
including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs,
have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied
or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and
expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made
available to the subsidiary.  The subsidiary continues to be named
as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the
number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant
nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional
cases or to resolve the pending cases.  However, the subsidiary
has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially
available to the subsidiary.  Although not all of the policies may
be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we
believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding from
settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights
from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with
insurers to respond to these claims.  While we cannot predict or
provide assurance as to the final outcome of these matters, we do
not believe that the current value of the claims where we have
been identified will have a material impact on our consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,773 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 56,773 pending asbestos-related claims as of
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.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company was a defendant in cases
filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Of the 56,773 pending
claims as of September 30, 2012, approximately 19,300 claims were
pending in New York, approximately 9,900 claims were pending in
Texas, approximately 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and
approximately 5,400 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions
in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one
of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and
instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor
of the defendants.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of
$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by
order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement
in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the
judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The
Company pursued an appeal in this matter, and on August 2, 2012
the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded
the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Company on the ground
that this claim could not be distinguished factually from the
Patrick O'Neil case decided in the Company's favor by the
California Supreme Court.

On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury
found that the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16.93 million; however, based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million,
plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a
motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's
favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009,
the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and
judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's
ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The
plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of
California, which dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the
matter is now finally determined in the Company's favor.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state
court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a
$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th
share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On
February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only,
in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the
plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those
judgments. The Nelson appeal is pending. The Company resolved the
Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled
claims for 2012.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on
October 18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million.  Plaintiffs have requested the Court to
enter a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the
Company, taking into account settlement offsets and accrued
interest under New York law.  The Company has appealed.
On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000
verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs
filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion,
the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the
Company, with prejudice, and without any payment.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' damages of $6.9 million; however, based on California
court rules regarding allocation of damages, plaintiffs have
requested the Court to enter a judgment in the amount of $0.8
million against the Company.  The Company plans to file post-trial
motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding
the jury's verdict and an appeal if necessary.
Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the nine-month
periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled $73.5 million
and $82.9 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the nine-month periods
ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled a $60.1 million net
payment and $59.2 million net payment, respectively.

The Company's asbestos-related liability was $824 million as of
September 30, 2012.

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Continues to Defend Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows of the company.

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

The Manitowoc Company, Inc., is a multi-industry, capital goods
manufacturer. MTW operates in two markets: Cranes and Related
Products (Crane) and Foodservice Equipment (Foodservice). Crane is
a provider of engineered lifting equipment for the global
construction industry, including lattice-boom cranes, tower
cranes, mobile telescopic cranes, and boom trucks. Foodservice is
a manufacturer of commercial foodservice equipment serving the
ice, beverage, refrigeration, food-preparation, and cooking needs
of restaurants, convenience stores, hotels, healthcare, and
institutional applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Defends London Insurers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed
by certain London Insurers asserting they have no obligation to
indemnify the company for 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: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory
judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District
Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and
INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no
obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury
claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim
requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20
underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on
January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse judgment or material
losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, we have not
accrued any amounts relating to this contingency. Although there
is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount or potential
range of loss is not estimable at this time. The insurer-
plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a purported
attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage
obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters
for which we have given notice that we could potentially seek
coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every
matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating
what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination
of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be
reasonably estimated."

McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company. The Company is focused on
designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Defends Boudreaux & New Antoine Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits filed
by seamen alleging exposure to 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: "On December 16, 2005, a proceeding entitled
Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et al.("Antoine
Suit"), was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, by approximately 88 plaintiffs against
approximately 215 defendants, including our subsidiaries formerly
known as JRMI and Delta Hudson Engineering Corporation ("DHEC"),
generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and
unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were
allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen. This case was dismissed by
the Court on January 10, 2007, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
rights to refile their claims. On January 29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs
from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Boudreaux,
et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "Boudreaux Suit"), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
against JRMI and our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott
Incorporated, and approximately 30 other employer defendants,
alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging exposure
to welding fumes, solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. The
Boudreaux Suit was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which
entered an order in September 2007 staying the matter until
further order of the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of
the co-defendants."

"Additionally, on January 29, 2007, another 43 plaintiffs from the
dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "New Antoine Suit"), in the 164th
Judicial District Court for Harris County, Texas, against JRMI,
our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated and
approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime
products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and
noise. On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order
staying all activity and deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other
than service of process and answer/appearance dates, until further
order of the Court. The New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion
to lift the stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the
Texas District Court. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an
unspecified amount in both the Boudreaux Suit and New Antoine Suit
cases and attorneys' fees in the New Antoine Suit. We cannot
reasonably estimate the extent of a potential judgment against us,
if any, and we intend to vigorously defend these suits."

McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company. The Company is focused on
designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faced 315 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, as of September 30, 2012, had 315 pending
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: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount.  However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support.  As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

"We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos.  Such products were provided to industrial users.  We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

"We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi.  As of September 30, 2012, there
were 315 pending claims compared to 242 pending claims at December
31, 2011.  The number of open claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled.  Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages
in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court.

"This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in which specific
alleged damage claims are often permitted.  The prohibition on
specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not only to the suit
when filed but also during the trial -- in some jurisdictions the
plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify to the jury during
the course of the trial the amount of alleged damages the
plaintiff is claiming.  Further, in those jurisdictions in which
plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged damages, many
plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In those cases
in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to assert specific
dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the amounts claimed
are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a company's
potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts claimed may
bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's injury and are
often used as part of the plaintiff's litigation strategy, (2) the
complaints typically assert claims against numerous defendants,
and often the alleged damages are not allocated against specific
defendants, but rather the broad claim is made against all of the
defendants as a group, making it impossible for a particular
defendant to quantify the alleged damages that are being
specifically claimed against it and therefore its potential
liability, and (3) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs
who have not suffered any medical injury, and ultimately are
resolved without any payment or payment of a small fraction of the
damages initially claimed.  Of the 315 claims pending as of
September 30, 2012, 74 claims do not specify the amount of damages
sought,  239 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and only two (2)
claims (less than 1.0% of the total pending claims) specify the
amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional requirements.
Of these two (2) claims, one (1) claim alleges compensatory and
punitive damages of $20 million each and one (1) claim alleges
compensatory damages of $65 million and punitive damages of $60
million. These two (2) claims name between ten (10) and 21
defendants.  However, we do not believe that this data allows for
an accurate assessment of the relation that the amount of alleged
damages claimed might bear to the ultimate disposition of these
cases.

"We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos.  A significant
increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases
arose in Mississippi in 2002.  This increase in the volume of
claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort
reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries),
which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in
a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi
by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by
the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform.  The number
of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in
2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008
and increased again in 2009 and 2010.  The number of lawsuits
filed against us in 2011 was significantly higher than in 2010.
However, it is still too early to be able to determine if this is
a meaningful trend even though almost as many lawsuits were filed
against us in the first three quarters of 2012 compared to all of
2011. Regardless, these new claims, and all previously filed
claims, may take a significant period of time to resolve.

"In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products.  We continue to believe that a
majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to
demonstrate exposure or loss.  This belief is based in large part
on two factors: the limited number of asbestos-related products
manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was
encapsulated in such products.  In addition, even at sites where
the presence of an alleged injured party can be verified during
the same period those products were used, our liability cannot be
presumed because even if an individual contracted an asbestos-
related disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was
exposed to the asbestos containing products that we manufactured.
Based on these and other factors, we have and will continue to
vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-related matters.

"Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants.  We have obtained dismissals of many of these claims.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, we were able to have
70 claims dismissed and settled eleven (11) claims.  For the year
ended December 31, 2011, 120 claims were dismissed and eight (8)
were settled.  The majority of costs have been paid by our
insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small
number of cases that have been settled.  Such settlements totaled
approximately $3.6 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2012, compared to $8.1 million for the year ended 2011.   Although
these figures provide some insight into our experience with
asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal
and settlement rates that we will experience in the future.

"Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants.  To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number.  The majority of settled claims were settled for
immaterial amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid
by our insurance carriers.  In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

"To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all
of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-
related claims.  The current cost sharing agreement between us and
such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the
ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers
until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted.  This four
year agreement expires on January 25, 2015 and replaced an older
agreement that had expired.

"Recently the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage
for the January 1, 1967 to June 30, 1969 period exhausted. The
cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carriers over
exhausted primary layer carriers will become parties to the cost
sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the
exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess
coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. The
excess carrier providing coverage for the period is not already a
party to the cost sharing agreement. Such excess carrier has been
notified of the exhaustion and is reviewing the cost sharing
agreement at this time.

"In early 2012, the estimated liability and estimated insurance
recovery, for the five-year period through 2016, was $27.9 million
and $27.7 million.  There was no change to these projections
during the third quarter of 2012."

Rogers Corporation manufactures plastics, polymers, busbars and
electronic connectors for a wide array of industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors' Row Stops Rawlins Demolition Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Roerink of The Star-Tribune reports that a stop-work order
has left a pile of asbestos-laced rubble at the site of a former
elementary school and delayed the demolition of another vacant
elementary school, both in Rawlins.  Meanwhile, accusations
continue to fly.

The increasingly impatient Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality doesn't care who says what about whom.  Spokesman Keith
Guille said the asbestos should have been properly removed by May.

"That didn't happen," he said.

The issue involves several interests beyond the state DEQ,
including:

     -- Englewood, Colo., general contractor Monarch Site
        Services.

     -- Westminster, Colo., subcontractor American Demolition.

     -- Carbon County School District 1.

     -- The city of Rawlins.

Monarch Site Services hired American Demolition to raze Pershing
Elementary School.

According to American Demolition attorney Michael Schlueter,
nowhere in the contract was there a clause mandating the company
remove asbestos.

Prior to demolition, it was agreed that Monarch Site Services
would remove all asbestos from the school before demolition, said
American Demolition CEO Jake Olivas.  He said Monarch Site
Services never gave his company "actual notice" that asbestos
remained in the area during demolition.  Olivas said he received
the proper permits to demolish the building, and it was
"absolutely clear" that he wouldn't begin work until Monarch Site
Services finished the asbestos removal.  Monarch Site Services
gave them the green light even though asbestos was still in the
structure, he said.

Monarch Site Services Vice President Chuck Bower said his company
wasn't responsible for American Demolition's mistakes.  The
company failed to demolish the building per state regulations and
specifications, he said.

"It's in the hands of the attorneys and insurance companies,"
Bower said.

Murray Wilkening, attorney for Monarch Site Services, declined to
comment on the ongoing investigation.

Schlueter, the American Demolition attorney, said this week that
the company plans to file a lawsuit soon.

Notices of Violation

The state DEQ issued notices of violation to American Demolition
and Monarch Site Services on Aug. 20.  The notices claimed both
companies were in violation of Wyoming air quality standards
because asbestos flashing in the ceiling of Pershing Elementary
wasn't properly removed before demolition.  The notice states
asbestos comingled with demolition debris and "all of the waste
material would need to be considered regulated asbestos containing
waste."

Carbon County School District 1 hasn't paid American Demolition
for razing Pershing Elementary.

Olivas said the school district is hurting a small business,
noting Carbon County School District 1 owes the company more than
$231,000 for demolishing Pershing Elementary in April.

Prior to demolition, both companies were aware that the building
contained at least 3,000 square feet of flashing material
containing 20% chrysotile asbestos, according to the DEQ notice.

The asbestos was considered unregulated material until the
improper removal and demolition of the building, DEQ said.

Olivas said the job cost him $80,000 more than what was in the
contract with Monarch Site Services.  Part of the extra cost was
the unexpected hauling of the asbestos material to different
landfills and an unexpected removal of concrete.

Nineteen additional truckloads of concrete had to be hauled away
because of foundation walls that weren't in the speculative plans,
Olivas said.  The concrete went as deep as eight feet underground.
The DEQ still considered it contaminated.

There's no reason to call it contaminated, Schlueter, the
attorney, said.  All of the above-grade, potentially contaminated
materials at the site had been removed and taken to a dump in
Larimer County, Colo., before the foundation concrete was
excavated, demolished and removed by American Demolition, he said.

"That doesn't matter because it all becomes regulated asbestos
material," Guille of the DEQ said.

Representatives from the district were required to monitor the
work site, said Dave Horner, business manager for Carbon County
School District 1.  When city officials from Rawlins became aware
that the concrete was going to the landfill in town, they issued a
stop-work order.  Olivas said representatives from the school
district approved the measure to dump the concrete at a local
landfill.  Horner disagreed.

"We're looking at all parties, including the [school district],"
Guille said.

Olivas said American Demolition conducted tests to measure on-site
contamination.

"There was a nondetect on every piece of dirt," he said.

The city of Rawlins requested copies of the test results.

"They haven't provided them to us," said Amy Bach, director of
community development for the city.

Wyoming DEQ and the school district also requested the test
results.  Neither has seen them, officials said.

American Demolition claims to have tested the concrete at the
landfill in Rawlins as well.  The results were clean, Olivas said.

At an impasse

Guille said the DEQ is working with American Demolition on
reaching a settlement.

"There is no bargaining because American Demolition did nothing
wrong," Schlueter said.

Mountain View Elementary in Rawlins was also slated to be
demolished.  But the stop-work order and the legal disputes have
the project's completion at an impasse.  There are broken windows,
overgrown grass and animals living inside the building.

A settlement between Monarch Site Services and American Demolition
was close, but nothing came to pass, Schlueter and Olivas said.

There was a revised scope-of-work order by the two companies for
demolition at Mountain View to begin.  American Demolition said it
would do the job after Monarch Site Services removed all of the
asbestos.  There was a provision granting American Demolition be
paid for the additional expenses from the unexpected asbestos and
concrete removal.

The city of Rawlins didn't accept it, Olivas said.

Horner, with the school district, said Monarch Site Services has
completed asbestos abatement at Mountain View.  But the demolition
won't start until its issues with American Demolition have been
resolved, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issues Delay Bidding for Forks Cleanup Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gottlieb of The Peninsula Daily News reports that bid
openings were delayed for demolition of the once-iconic, now-
charred remains of the International Order of Odd Fellows hall in
Forks, pushing back site cleanup in the center of downtown to
probably after the holiday season.

Confusion over specifications regarding cleanup of asbestos at the
site, a former community gathering place for art classes and
plays, prompted the rejection of five bids that were opened
Monday, Nov. 26, at City Hall, City Attorney/Planner Rod Fleck
said.

The contract award date was moved to Dec. 10 for a cleanup project
that could take up to 45 days, Fleck said.

"There was significant confusion with the contractors on an
element regarding some old asbestos flooring tiles, laminate
tiles," he said.

"There was enough confusion that it highlighted a disparity in the
bids.

"In talking to experts on that, we said, 'OK, we need to get a
clarification to let the folks know what they and the workers can
and can't do.'"

Cleanup could take a few weeks and be completed by New Year's Day,
but that's unlikely, Fleck said.

"In all likelihood, the earliest you could see us having cleanup
is the end of the year, and with all the work being finished,
probably by the middle part of January," he said.

"With some of the costs involved, we want to make sure everyone
has the right information and same information when they are
bidding."

The IOOF hall at 35 N. Forks Ave. and the adjacent, vacant former
Dazzled by Twilight souvenir store at 61 N. Forks Ave., which also
housed Olympic Pharmacy and the Fern Gallery at different times in
its history, were destroyed in an early morning Oct. 29 fire
during which no one was injured.

The city-owned IOOF hall, which also housed the Rainforest Art
Center on the second floor and the Latin American-themed La Tienda
store on the first floor, is insured for $3.7 million.

The value of the loss will be determined in about 90 to 120 days,
Fleck said.

"We could exceed $3.7 million," he said.

"We have to work with the insurance company, too, on the cost of
the cleanup as part of the overall claim."

It remains unclear when the former Dazzled by Twilight building
owned by Alaska Financial Co. of Anchorage will be leveled and the
site prepared for a new occupant.

The company has not given the city much information on its
intentions, Fleck said.

"We are going to have to have a conversation with them as to what
their plans are," he added.

Company Vice President Charles Preston would not comment
Wednesday, Nov. 28 on when Alaska Financial might begin cleaning
up the site.

The company purchased the site in a foreclosure transaction in
June, according to the Clallam County Assessor's Office.

The operators of La Tienda continue to explore their options,
Fleck said.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
has determined the blaze was not criminal in origin and was caused
by an electrical malfunction.

The agency has yet to issue a written report on the blaze, Fleck
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Material Dumped in Blackpool Back Alley
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shelagh Parkinson of The Blackpool Gazette (UK) reports that
Blackpool residents on Nov. 26 were being warned to ensure they
dispose of deadly asbestos safely.  It follows on from an incident
where the toxic material was dumped in a Blackpool back alley.

People living in Bournemouth Road and Boscombe Road, South Shore,
were shocked when asbestos sheeting was tipped into the alley
behind their homes overnight on Monday, Nov. 26.

Coun Fred Jackson, cabinet member with responsibility for waste,
said: "First of all, fly tipping is illegal, regardless of the
materials that are being dumped, and it is not a safe way of
removing waste.

"Asbestos is a hazardous material, and we have systems in place
that can help people to remove it from their gardens in small
amounts.  To do this, they should come along to the Household
Waste Recycling Centre and collect some special bags to collect it
up and bring it back to Bristol Avenue to be disposed of safely.

"People or companies who have larger quantities will be helped to
find a specialist building contractor who are properly licensed by
the Health and Safety Executive to take the hazardous waste away."

Squires Gate ward councillor Douglas Green believes the closure of
the St. Annes tip by Lancashire County Council last year has led
to more fly tipping in South Shore.

He said: "Ever since the tip in St. Annes was closed, I have been
expecting there to be more fly tipping."

It was estimated around 40% of the waste taken there came from
Blackpool residents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison Public Library Closes For Abatement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Eagle News reports that The Madison Public Library at
39 Keep St. is out of action for about two weeks due to an
asbestos abatement project that began Monday, Nov. 26.

The library closed at 5 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 25, and will remain
closed through the abatement work period, estimated at about two
weeks, to Monday, Dec. 10.

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

Public meetings scheduled for the library's Chase Room, however,
will proceed during the remediation since the auditorium is
adjacent to the library but a separate building.

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

For updates on the duration of the library's closure, visit the
library's Web site at http://www.madisonnjlibrary.org/or call the
library at (973) 377-0722.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Clients Awarded $17 Million Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd announced a very
significant asbestos damages verdict for the families of two
mesothelioma victims.  Garlock Sealing Technologies and Crane Co.
valves were found responsible for exposing the men to asbestos
from multiple products.  Baron and Budd mesothelioma attorney
Denyse Clancy -- dclancy@baronbudd.com -- represented both
families during the trial.  (Consolidated Asbestos Cases v. Crane
Co., et al., Nos. 00199 and 00911 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls.,
Philadelphia Cty.)

During the trial, Garlock argued that the plaintiffs could not
feasibly prove that their gaskets, as the two men used them, were
what contributed to their mesothelioma diagnosis.  The evidence
showed that Garlock gaskets contained between 75 and 90% asbestos.
The jury saw a document -- which Garlock tried unsuccessfully to
exclude -- in which Garlock admitted that its asbestos-containing
gaskets could cause mesothelioma.  Garlock reached a confidential
settlement with the families shortly thereafter.

Crane Co. reached a confidential settlement with the families just
before the Pennsylvania jury returned its damages verdict.  After
the settlement, Garlock Sealing Technologies was the only
remaining defendant when the jury returned its damages verdict.
The jury determined that asbestos exposure from the company's
products were the cause of both men's asbestos exposure.  The jury
awarded the two families' damages of a combined amount of $17
million.

                       About Baron & Budd

Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Baton Rouge, Austin and
Beverly Hills, is a nationally recognized firm with more than
three decades of experience representing people and communities
harmed by corporate negligence.  It has been recognized repeatedly
by the National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" (2002-2006,
2008; Incisive Media).  The firm resolved one of the first
asbestos cases in the United States in the 1970s and continues to
serve people diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung
cancer.  On the Net: http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Kills Ilkeston Mechanic
-----------------------------------------------------
The Ilkeston Advertiser (UK) reports that a 52-year-old from
Ilkeston, died from exposure to asbestos during his work as a
mechanic, an inquest has heard.

Eric Smith died at his Manor Road home on Sept. 24 a year after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by asbestos.

Wife Christine told Derby Coroner's Court on Friday, Nov. 30, that
he was "fit and well" before his diagnosis but an operation in
September 2011 removed most of his right lung.

Mrs. Smith explained that during his work as a mechanic from the
age of 16, often working very long hours, seven days a week, he
would blow asbestos dust off brake and clutch pedals without any
protective clothing or face mask.

Deputy coroner Louise Pinder recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Announces 2013 Conference Speakers, Honorees
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization on Nov. 30 announced
its keynote speakers and honorees for the upcoming Ninth Annual
International Asbestos Awareness Conference, titled The Asbestos
Crisis: New Trends in Prevention and Treatment.

The conference will be held March 22-24, 2013, at the Crystal
Gateway Marriott in Arlington, VA.  More than 30 renowned medical
experts and asbestos victims from five countries will speak on the
latest advancements in asbestos disease prevention, treatment for
mesothelioma and other asbestos-caused diseases, and global ban
asbestos advocacy.  The conference will also include an Awards and
Recognition Dinner and a Unity and Remembrance Brunch, as well as
a private lunch and U.S. Capitol tour for victims and their
families.

"Only at the ADAO conference can I find experts in so many
different asbestos fields sharing the latest information," said
Dr. Richard Lemen, retired U.S. Assistant Surgeon General and ADAO
Science Advisory Board Co-Chair.  "I wouldn't miss it."  Dr. Lemen
has attended every ADAO conference since the inaugural event in
2005 and will chair the 2013 Medical Advancements session.

The 2013 conference will offer a variety of interactive
discussions centered around four key topics: Medical Advancements,
Patients Advocacy, Prevention, and Global Ban Asbestos Action.  In
light of Hurricane Sandy, ADAO recently added a session to
specifically address issues surrounding toxic exposure in the
aftermath of natural disasters.

"As a mesothelioma widow, I consider it unconscionable that
millions of homes, schools, and workplaces still contain asbestos
materials," stated Linda Reinstein, President/CEO and Co-Founder
of ADAO.  "Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for more than a
century, yet consumer, environmental, and occupational asbestos
exposure continues in the U.S. and around the world.  Until
Congress bans asbestos and researchers discover a cure for
asbestos-related diseases, ADAO will continue our education,
advocacy, and community building initiatives in an effort to
prevent asbestos exposure."

This year's keynote speakers include Dr. Aubrey Miller, Senior
Medical Advisor and National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) Liaison to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), and Karen Banton, widow of the late activist
Bernie Banton and CEO of the Bernie Banton Foundation.

Each year, ADAO's conference recognizes outstanding individuals
and organizations from around the world that serve as a voice for
asbestos victims, raising awareness and advocating for a worldwide
asbestos ban.  ADAO is delighted to announce the 2013 ADAO
Honorees.  U.S. Representative Lois Capps will be presented with
the Tribute of Hope Award for her steadfast commitment to public
health and safety.  Dr. Celeste Monforton will be recognized with
the Dr. Irving Selikoff Lifetime Achievement Award in honor of her
tireless dedication to increasing asbestos awareness to eliminate
diseases.  The International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Allied Workers will receive the Tribute of Unity
Award for the organization's relentless efforts, both nationally
and internationally, to protect workers' occupational safety and
health.  The Tribute of Inspiration Award will be presented to
Karen Banton for her untiring efforts to protect workers' rights
and seek justice for asbestos victims and their families.  Rob
Cagle, who lost his battle with mesothelioma in 2011, and Mavis
Nye, a mesothelioma patient, will be honored with the Alan
Reinstein Award for their commitment to education, advocacy and
support.

To register for ADAO's 2013 conference, visit the following link:
http://bit.ly/Svdp0c

          About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Woes Balloon Pueblo City Hall Project Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that
at the outset of the project, estimates for renovating the
historic City Hall of Pueblo City, Colorado hovered around the
$4.5 million mark.  The original budget of $4.5 million was
proposed and approved in the summer of 2010, and now, more than
two years into the project, the renovation costs are skyrocketing.

Currently, the estimated total for the Pueblo City City Hall
project is around $6.7 million, and city officials are concerned
that since the renovations are nowhere near completion, that
number is going to continue to climb.  Phase 2 of the renovation
project, already projected to be over budget, has yet to begin.

One of the main culprits to the additional cost is the discovery
of asbestos throughout the building.  The expensive, yet necessary
costs associated with removing the asbestos is causing the budget
to bubble.  Though safe removal of the toxin is paramount, regular
renovation contractors are not licensed or trained to handle the
asbestos.  Asbestos abatement or asbestos removal is a highly
specialized industry that not only adheres to local, state and
federal government guidelines and regulations, improper removal of
asbestos can be life-threatening.

Classified as a carcinogen on the same level as cigarette smoke,
asbestos is a naturally-occurring set of minerals that was widely
used in manufacturing.  As a whole, asbestos is not dangerous or
life-threatening; only when the toxin is disturbed from a solid
state does it pose a significant health concern.

Just as it is the case with improper asbestos removal,
unintentionally disturbing asbestos causes small particles to
contaminate the air.  These small asbestos particles may then
embed in the soft, delicate tissue surrounding the lungs, heart or
abdominal cavity, causing what is known as mesothelioma cancer.
Asbestos exposure causes other significant health issues.

Though the apparent and unforeseen costs associated with the
discovery of asbestos in the historic City Hall has had a negative
effect on the renovation budget, some City Council members are
also attributing poor fiscal management as another reason for the
ballooning budget.  Since the project's beginning, Pueblo City has
seen three city managers, and some members of the council are
blaming this inconsistency as a major reason for the lack of
fiscal accountability.

The City Hall project is currently scheduled to be completed in
May 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Client Awarded $9 Million Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd announced a
$9 million verdict on Dec. 1 for a Dow Chemical worker and his
family.  The mesothelioma lawsuit was on behalf of Robert
Henderson, now deceased, his wife Tanya Henderson and daughters
Adrienna and Za'Quoia.  (Henderson v. Dow Chemical Co., Dallas
County District Court, No. 10-07003).

Baron & Budd mesothelioma lawyers John Langdoc --
jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- and Alana Kalantzakis --
akalantzakis@baronbudd.com -- represented the Dallas family at
trial.  Langdoc and Kalantzakis successfully established that
Henderson's exposure to asbestos at Dow Chemical facility was what
caused his mesothelioma.

"We verified that Mr. Henderson was one of many workers who was
exposed to asbestos at Dow Chemical and later came down with an
asbestos cancer," said John Langdoc.  "Dow knew workers could get
cancer."

Henderson spent the majority of his career working around products
that contained asbestos.  At Dow Chemical, he worked as a contract
employee and was exposed as a bystander to asbestos-containing Dow
insulators.  As one of the largest chemical manufacturing plants
in the world, Dow Chemical employs thousands of workers who have
possibly been exposed to asbestos directly and as bystanders.

For almost 35 years, the mesothelioma lawyers at Baron and Budd
have been defending the rights of mesothelioma sufferers and their
families.  The law firm was one of the first to successfully
handle a mesothelioma lawsuit and remains committed to standing up
to the asbestos companies for knowingly exposing people to
asbestos products.  With an extensive record of success, Baron &
Budd has built the reputation and experience to handle the most
complex of cases.

                     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.
Visit Baron & Budd's dedicated mesothelioma Web site Mesothelioma
News at http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/or call 1.866.855.1229
for information on medical treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors
and treatment centers, high risk jobs, veterans issues and
financial assistance for asbestos cancer care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Councils to Get Guidelines for DIY Buffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that NSW councils will be
given guidelines on how they can minimize asbestos risks for home
renovators as part of a campaign to protect DIY enthusiasts.

Campaigners fear that many home renovators are at risk of exposure
to asbestos, which is found in most homes built before the mid-
1980s and can cause deadly cancers if the fibers become airborne
and are inhaled.

To raise awareness of the issue the state government has compiled
a Model Asbestos Policy for local councils, which contains best
practice for dealing with the deadly substance.

Launching the policy in Sydney on Monday, NSW Minister for Local
Government Don Page said renovators should leave asbestos disposal
to the experts.

"Unless you know what you're doing, you're better off not doing
it," Mr. Page told reporters.

"You're better off getting someone in who knows how to manage
asbestos."

The policy highlights the role that councils should play in terms
of waste disposal, emergency response and public education.

Mr. Page said there had already been at least 4700 deaths from
mesothelioma in Australia since records began in the early 1980s,
with more than 25,000 more expected to die from it over the next
40 years.

"Currently, each year 500 men and 100 women develop mesothelioma
in Australia, and this is expected to rise to 900 new cases a year
by 2020," he said.

Professor Nico van Zandwijk, who helped draw up the policy, said
the scale of the problem was huge in Australia, where there was
enough asbestos waste to fill 300,000 jumbo jets.

"That is the legacy of a lot of asbestos use in the built
environment," he said.

As part of the campaign, launched at the start of Asbestos
Awareness Week, a portable replica house will tour the country to
demonstrate where asbestos can be found in the home.

The Asbestos Diseases Research Institute will stage a candle-light
vigil for victims of asbestos on Monday night (Nov. 26) at the
Sydney Opera House, which will have its sails illuminated blue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Is Now Stand-In for Planet Mars
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Canada's last asbestos mine, now
winding down its operations, may have a new celestial calling --
as a stand-in for planet Mars.

Quebec's Jeffrey Mine hosted nearly two-dozen scientists recently
for a simulated Mars mission initiated by Canada's space agency.

The scientists from four universities made a pair of trips to the
Asbestos region, this year and last year, accompanied by a micro-
rover.

"There are definitely areas [on Mars] that are much more like what
we have at Jeffrey Mine," said Ed Cloutis, a University of
Winnipeg professor who participated in the project.

The new vocation won't exactly replace the once-mighty asbestos
industry as an economic lifeblood for the region.

The mine had been counting on a $58 million government loan to
renovate and keep operating.  The simulated Mars mission, on the
whole, cost $800,000 -- and some local officials, including an
alderman and the town's director general, didn't even appear to be
aware of the project when contacted by The Canadian Press.

             Searching For "Key Indicators" Of Life

The goal of the project was to simulate as closely as possible a
Mars rover mission to detect the presence of, and determine the
source of, methane on Mars.

Cloutis, an expert in planetary geology, said the scientific
missions to the Asbestos region could be Canada's ticket to future
trips to the red planet.

"One way to search for life on Mars [is] you look at the gases
that might be produced or used as a food source by bacteria on
Mars," Cloutis said in an interview.

Methane gas, which can be found at the mine on the edge of the
town of Asbestos, is one of two key indicators of life.  The other
is water.

Jeffrey, with a diameter of over two kilometers and 350 meters
deep, was one of the largest open-pit mines in the world.  The
mine hosts serpentinite, a rock which is prone to bacteria -- the
ultimate life form.  Methane gas is a byproduct of bacteria.

Methane has already been detected in the Martian atmosphere and
scientists are hoping NASA's Curiosity rover will find it on the
planet.

The Asbestos project was spearheaded by MPB Communications Inc., a
Montreal-area firm and the prime contractor, which also developed
a micro-rover named Kapvik.  The waist-high rover, whose robotic
arm was developed by engineers at Ryerson University, was put to
work during the research.

The mission employed a team of about 20 people at Jeffrey Mine in
June 2011 and again at nearby Norbestos, in June 2012, while the
Canadian Space Agency in Longueuil, Que., acted as mission
control.

Cloutis was joined on the project by other scientific
investigators from McGill University, Carleton University and the
University of Toronto.

         Cancelled Loan Ensured Asbestos Mine Closure

Their initial site is looking even more desolate and Mars-like
than usual, these days.

The new Parti Quebecois provincial government has cancelled a $58
million loan, which would have kept the controversial industry
alive.  Cancelling that loan, signed in July by the former Liberal
government, was a PQ election promise.

Asbestos town councillor Serge Boislard says that, since the
cancellation, the number of personnel at the mine has dropped down
to about 20 workers who are only doing basic maintenance and
providing security.

He says the last of the mine's managers and engineers were laid
off several weeks ago.  He recalls the days when that mine
employed about 2,000 people -- back in the industry's heyday,
before the international pressure mounted to ban asbestos because
of its links to cancer.

"It would take a miracle to reopen the mine in the coming years,"
he said.  Like some other local officials, Boislard hadn't heard
of the Mars project.

The effort got rolling when the Canadian Space Agency contracted
MPB's space division to develop the so-called "analogue" mission.

Wes Jamroz, the director of MPB Communications, says the Jeffrey
Mine has a bright future as a Mars substitute.

"This mine is a very real environment to practice future
deployment on Mars because you have the same rocks (and) you have
the same environment," he said in an interview.

"During these two deployments we were able to find out that there
were natural traces of methane as well, so you have all the
factors that you need."

           More promising than curiosity probe?

Jamroz suggests the Quebec project might even, in some ways, be on
a more promising track than NASA's famous Curiosity rover.

He says the huge NASA lab is using laser-based instruments to
"sniff" for methane on rocks and cracks, which mixes very quickly
with the atmosphere.

"The chances of sniffing things, and that you are going to find an
opening, are very low -- but this is my opinion," Jamroz said.

He says the tests carried out in Quebec indicate it would be much
more effective to look for certain kinds of rocks and cracks on
the Martian surface.

"You have a set of cameras that can recognize certain geological
features and you go to the spot and then you measure methane," he
said.

Jamroz also said using his small micro-rover for a future Mars
mission would be far less expensive than Curiosity, which is the
size of a small SUV.

"Remember, Curiosity weighs one ton and the rover we are playing
with is between 30 and 40 kilos," he said.  "We estimate that this
kind of mission, with international co-operation from partners
like the Brits and Americans, you can do it with $100 million
instead of several billion."

NASA says Curiosity, which weighs 900 kilograms, cost $2.5
billion.

Cloutis told a recent Canadian space summit in London, Ont., that
his group is lobbying for additional rover trials at Asbestos.

"Our rationale is that the moon and Mars will continue to be
targets of interest for the deployment of rovers," he said.

"In terms of waving the Canadian flag, if we have all this great
experience, we'll be better positioned to participate in some of
these [future] international missions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Slams MAV's Rejection of AAMR Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Silva of The Northern Weekly reports that Victoria's
local government peak body has come under fire for refusing to
support council-operated residential asbestos registers.

On Nov. 12, the Municipal Association of Victoria issued a
statement, rejecting a recommendation by the Australian Asbestos
Management Review (AAMR) that councils take a lead role in
monitoring asbestos in homes.  The MAV said the recommendation was
not "appropriate or efficient" for councils.

The MAV was responding to an August report in which the federal
government-funded Australian Asbestos Management Review called on
councils to identify asbestos in all houses built before 1987 that
were up for sale or lease.

It also recommended that councils carry out asbestos inspections
before renovations and maintain their own asbestos databases,
which could be used by tradesmen or prospective purchasers or
leasees.

The review's recommendations would eventually involve thousands of
homes built with asbestos products if adopted.

Bayside council was unable to provide figures on the number of
dwellings built pre-1987 before deadline, but Census figures show
36,806 homes in the city in 2006.

MAV president Bill McArthur said asbestos checks should be done by
state governments to avoid council rate rises.  "They fail to
consider cost impacts, constraints already affecting councils and
how the proposals would be funded," he said.

Bayside council's city strategy director, Shiran Wickramasinghe,
said councils didn't have powers to enforce asbestos checks under
current laws.

"The majority of building permits are issued by private building
surveyors.  Additionally if an internal alteration is non
structural, there isn't a requirement for a building permit," he
said.

But advocacy group Asbestoswise described the MAV stance as "a
massive cop-out."

"The database would be useful to . . . anyone who's going to cause
dust from internal movement or renovation," chief executive
officer Wayne Bruton said.

Mr. Bruton said councils could conduct checks when a vendor
applied for a land information certificate, required when putting
a property on the market.

Experts believe 25,000 Australians will die from mesothelioma,
often caused by asbestos, during the next four decades.  A recent
Safe Work Australia study showed a sharp rise in the death rate,
from just over 400 deaths in 1997 to 642 in 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Researchers Receive AU$291,815 Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
The APN Newsdesk reports that researchers from the Queensland
Mesothelioma Project (QMP), Southern Cross University (SCU) and
the University of Queensland (UQ) were among eight recipients of
money to help people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses.

The money was awarded through the Asbestos Innovation Fund, which
was launched by the Federal Government in 2010.

Dr. Kimberly Stannard from the Queensland Mesothelioma Project
will receive AU$150,000 to test a new treatment regime that
combines chemotherapy with tumor specific immune therapy.

Associate Professor Rick van der Zwan from Southern Cross
University will receive AU$96,015 to identify and better
understand the negative changes in the social, psychological and
economic activities of individuals and families living with
asbestos-related illnesses.

Associate Professor Judith Bauer from the University of Queensland
will receive AU$45,800 to determine the nutritional status, body
composition and dietary intake and quality of life of patients
with mesothelioma.

The aim of her research is to advance understanding and knowledge
about the nutritional care of mesothelioma patients.

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten, who announced the
recipients of the funding on Tuesday, Nov. 27, said while the
costs of asbestos-related illness were high, the price of inaction
was higher.

"The reality is that asbestos-related deaths are not expected to
peak until 2020, and that tragically, we are expecting another 30-
40,000 people to be diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases in
the next 20 years," Mr. Shorten said.

"According to the International Labour Organisation, someone in
the world dies from an asbestos-related disease every five
minutes.  In Australia, it is expected that more Australians will
die from diseases related to asbestos than were killed in the
First World War."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Celebrates Asbestos Awareness Week
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News (Australia) says half a world away from her native
Canada, Alison Preece has found a place to celebrate the life of
her husband, who died of mesothelioma.

As the sun set over Circular Quay on Monday night (Nov. 26), Ms.
Preece joined about 100 other people in a candlelight tribute to
those who died because of asbestos-related disease, part of
Asbestos Awareness Week celebrations.

The sails of the Opera House were illuminated blue in their honor.

Ms. Preece, who was on holidays in Sydney, said she was exploring
Circular Quay on Sunday, Nov. 25, when she stumbled across the
Asbestos Diseases Foundation's educational trailer.

Having lost her husband Elmer in September last year, Ms. Preece
said attending the vigil was the perfect way to spend her last
night in Australia.

"Elmer loved to travel, so after he passed I resolved to keep
travelling -- it's what he would have wanted," Ms. Preece said.

"He'd been involved with asbestos as a result of his work as an
engineer.

"They would have small explosions in the boiler room, what the
workers called fairy dust."

"Of course they had no protection and it's presumed that's when
the fibers got into his lungs."

The chairman of the Asbestos Education Committee, Peter Munphy,
said it was vital to remember asbestos was "still all around" in
homes, schools and workplaces.

Asbestos-related disease caused 200 deaths a year in NSW and about
600 nationally, Mr. Munphy said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Decrepit Building in Miss. Starts
----------------------------------------------------------------
NorthEscambia.com reports work was scheduled to begin Nov. 26, to
demolish a large, dilapidated  asbestos-containing building in
Century, Miss.

The town council had voted to demolish the building at 7601 Mayo
Street back in 2011, but asbestos concerns put those plans on
hold.  A study found asbestos in the older 6,400 square foot two
story portion of the building, as well as in the newer single
story portion of the structure, according to Century Mayor Freddie
McCall.

The town found a grant from the Regional Planning Council to abate
the asbestos and demolish the structure.  Because the town is not
eligible to receive the grant, the building was deeded to the
Century Chamber of Commerce, which is eligible for the assistance.

Once the building is demolished, the chamber will have up to 10
years to lure development to the property or it will revert back
to the town.  The town will approve or deny any lease or purchase
of the property.

The white, mostly brick building across from the old hospital
housed doctors' offices and even a pharmacy and soda fountain
years ago.  It has been abandoned for several years and is in an
obvious state of disrepair with roof and structural problems.

The building demolition and asbestos abatement are scheduled to be
complete by Dec. 12.  Residents and visitors to the area are asked
to use caution and abide by all safety notifications and barriers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Project at St. Mary's Park in Penrith
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Thomas of The Mt. Druitt Standard (Australia) reports that
Penrith Council has uncovered fibrous material at a St. Mary's
park which could be asbestos.

During excavation works to build a children's bike path at Bennett
Park, the council's contractors uncovered the material on the
site.

Work has stopped and the area secured until it is identified.

Mayor Mark Davies said a range of precautionary measures,
including the complete fencing of the site and covering all
excavated areas.

"The council has called in the experts and a detailed site
assessment is being completed," he said.

"The assessment will both identify the material and . . . will
guide council in the best management of the site until all works
are completed and there is no risk to the community."

The project when completed, will deliver 250 meters of two-meter
wide children's bike path, complete with line marking.

The track builds on the range of play facilities already available
at the park.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Forms Model Asbestos Policy for Councils
-------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos can raise health concerns for one, if accidentally
inhaled.  It is, therefore, that the government of New South Wales
has formed a Model Asbestos Policy meant for local councils,
Neeraj Shahane of TopNews Network reports.

It reportedly contains the practice that can best deal with the
fatal compound.

It is being said that the policy would raise awareness about the
issue and would save lives of many home renovators.  The state
councils would be taught on how to cut the risks imposed by
asbestos on home renovators.

The aim is also to protect DIY enthusiasts, the report says.  Don
Page, NSW Minister for Local Government, said while launching the
campaign that home renovators should, from now on, leave the
disposal of asbestos to experts.

The substance is mostly found in the homes that were built in the
mid-1980s or before.  It has been warned that the same, if its
fibers turn airborne, can lead to various potentially fatal
cancers.  Therefore, the policy is also focused on making councils
learn how to respond in emergency and educate public over the
same.

"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", said WorkCover Operations Director Peter Dunphy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forster Mill Demolition Plan to Launch Anytime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hongoltz-Hetling of MaineToday Media reports that Wilton
Recycling will pay a $7,500 penalty to the state for the company's
role in an asbestos hazard at the former Forster Mill, according
to the Department of Environmental Protection.

The company's owner, Adam Mack, 38, said active demolition of the
now-safe Depot Street site could begin at any time, whether or not
he is incarcerated for unrelated charges.

Mack, who is a former Republican state representative for
Standish, pleaded guilty in U.S District Court in Portland in
October to misusing federal money.  He has not yet been sentenced,
but could spend up to five years in prison for the crime.

"The other stuff is still ongoing and whether I'm available to
directly coordinate or not, I have other responsible people in
place who will continue with the Wilton project," Mack said.

In Wilton, the lengthy enforcement process against Mack ends with
the consent agreement he entered into with the department.

"The conclusion of this case is a win-win that proves DEP's
enforcement process works," said Samantha Depoy-Warren, department
spokeswoman, after announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Nov. 27.
"The responsible party was held accountable in a firm but fair way
and more importantly, the eventual removal of asbestos from this
site now allows for the redevelopment of this community
cornerstone."

Demolition of the mill was halted in July 2011, when workers
alerted federal officials to unsafe working conditions caused by
the improper removal of insulation containing asbestos from pipes.

According to the consent agreement, no one inspected the site for
the presence of asbestos before the demolition, a violation of
department rules.

While cleaning up the remaining mess, an asbestos removal expert
called it the worst asbestos site he's seen in Maine in 30 years.

The asbestos was removed safely in September, after more than a
year of negotiation between the department and Mack.

Depoy-Warren said the resolution is an achievement for the
department, the abatement contractor, the town of Wilton and to
Mack, "for stepping up to make the site right, a positive action
that's reflected in the reduced monetary penalty."

Under the consent agreement, which was signed by Mack in October,
the company makes no admissions as to whether it violated the law.
However, any future environmental violations would be considered
repeat violations.

Mack said that he considered the agreement to be fair and that
plans to demolish the front section of the building are in motion.

"If all goes well, the first part of the building will come down
this winter," he said.  "It could come down at any time."

He said that the main part of the building will likely be
demolished in the spring.

While Mack's company owns the mill property, the botched
demolition work was done by Downeast Construction, owned by Ryan
Byther, a Scarborough contractor who was sentenced to six months
in jail in May for an unrelated incident.

Depoy-Warren said the case against Byther remains open.

Before his employees reported the violations, Byther removed and
sold piping worth an estimated $250,000 from the site.  He was
fined $154,200 earlier this year by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.

Mack said Byther will not be involved in the remainder of the
demolition work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WA Labor Senator Launches Attack on CSR Solicitor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Grattan for WA Today (Australia) reports the government
stepped up its attack on deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop on
Tuesday night (Nov. 27) when a Western Australian Labor senator
accused her of conducting asbestos litigation in "an immoral and
inhumane manner."

Glenn Sterle told the Senate that Ms. Bishop, who was a solicitor
acting for CSR, should feel ashamed of the harm she had caused to
the people of Western Australia.

He said she had demonstrated a total lack of judgment and failed
to exercise the requisite degree of professional independence.

She had displayed "highly questionable values", and failed to live
up to the ethical standards expected of her as a lawyer, by
seeking to defeat the fair and efficient administration of
justice.

Ms. Bishop also had "serious questons to answer", about the
suspicious disappearance of documents that may have been of
assistance to the victims of Wittenoom.

Senator Sterle accused Ms. Bishop of seeking to use procedural
tactics to delay judgment, and exploiting technicalities to reduce
compensation payable.

"In subsequent years, CSR's solicitor has pleaded that she was
simply acting on her client's instructions and the advice of
barristers when she sought to delay justice to dying men.

"But the solicitor, and she alone, is responsible for her conduct
as a solicitor -- she can't shift the blame to her clients or
advising counsel."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Minister Doubts Local Anti-Fibro Efforts
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Deans of The South Wales Argus reports that the Welsh
education minister has raised questions over whether local
councils are dealing with asbestos properly in the wake of the
Cwmcarn High School crisis.

Leighton Andrews said in a written statement to AMs that responses
to a call to all local authorities to confirm they were
undertaking their duties under law over asbestos, had been
"varied."

"As a consequence, and based upon, the responses received I do not
feel sufficiently assured at this stage that local authorities are
discharging their statutory duties to manage asbestos and have
sufficient plans in place," he wrote.

Mr. Andrews said he will now ask councils that they ensure head
teachers and governing bodies know and understand their
obligations and duties, have reviewed the relevant insurance and
are following provided guidance.

He added he has asked his own officials to work with others to
address the matter urgently so "the management of asbestos and the
safety of learners and teachers isn't compromised."

The statement also said it was not practical to remove asbestos
from every school in Wales "on a blanket basis."

"The HSE has always maintained that the best approach for asbestos
in sound condition and not likely to be damaged is to leave it
well alone, protect it and manage it to prevent damage and
exposure to asbestos," Mr. Andrews wrote.

Mr. Andrews spoke ahead of a debate on the issue due to take place
in the Assembly, called by Monmouth AM Nick Ramsay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Tenterfield Toxic Mulch to Complete
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenterfield Star reports that the Tenterfield Shire Council
(New South Wales, Australia) is promoting National Asbestos
Awareness Week this week as the last asbestos-affected mulch is
removed from the shire.

Mayor Peter Petty said council and the community had faced
significant issues in relation to asbestos since the fire at the
Sunnyside Loop Waste Transfer Station in January and the discovery
of low levels of asbestos in mulch earlier this year.

Cr Petty said the issues highlighted the dangers posed by asbestos
and the need for everyone to take the necessary precautions.

He said asbestos needed to be disposed of in a responsible manner
others must not be placed in harm's way due to reckless illegal
dumping of asbestos.

Cr Petty said he was pleased to see council's commitment to
Asbestos Awareness Week which ran from Nov. 26 t0 30 and is aimed
at raising the community's knowledge of the dangers of asbestos.

Council employed East Coast Asbestos Removal (ECA) to remove mulch
from about 17 properties in the shire that were found to have used
mulch from the transfer station that was contaminated with
asbestos.

The program is close to completion.

Tenterfield Shire Council has partnered with the Asbestos Diseases
Research Institute (ADRI) as part of a week-long national campaign
created to be the first line of defense against the "third wave"
of asbestos-related diseases caused by inhaling asbestos fibers
while renovating or maintaining homes.

"Don't play Renovation Roulette!" is the message the Tenterfield
Shire Council, the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute and the
Asbestos Education Committee are sending to all Australians during
the awareness week.

Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-related
diseases in the world most likely because Australia has also been
ranked among the top consumers of asbestos cement products per
capita.

With almost every home built or renovated before the mid-1980s
likely to contain asbestos in one form or another; the third wave
of people affected by mesothelioma, one of the asbestos-related
diseases, has recently become evident.

"Before commencing any home maintenance or renovation work,
homeowners and renovators, particularly young couples and first
home buyers excited about renovating their homes, need to learn
about where they might find asbestos in the home and how best to
manage it so they can protect themselves and their families from
asbestos fibres," a release from council said.

"We want Australians to stop being complacent about how they work
with asbestos.  We want them to start thinking smart and safe by
visiting http://www.asbestosawareness.com.au/for information on
managing asbestos in and around the home because it's not worth
the risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duluth Will Seek Funds for Armory Remediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Stahl of The Duluth News Tribune reports the June flood
may turn out to be a financial boon for the Duluth Armory, but
also will cause the building to be inspected by state authorities
for potential environmental hazards.

The city of Duluth will seek several hundred thousand dollars to
repair damage from the flood related to the Armory, including
removing asbestos disturbed by the floodwater, according to the
city and the Armory Arts and Music Center, which owns the
building.

Without that money, the Armory would not have been able to pay for
the abatement and cleanup.

"We always assumed we'd remove at least the asbestos," said Mark
Poirier, the project development consultant for the Armory Arts
and Music Center.  "It's not an occupied space, but there is
mechanical equipment down there, and people need access to monitor
the culvert."

Rushing water from Chester Creek, which runs underneath the
Armory, blew up from a culvert through the basement of the
building, filling the area with debris, sediment and concrete from
the culvert, damaging electrical work and disturbing asbestos,
Poirier said.

The cost to repair the culvert and clean up the Armory basement
could total from $400,000 to $800,000, said Cari Pedersen, the
city of Duluth's chief engineer of transportation.

The city is paying for the armory work because the damage was
caused by the city-owned culvert, Pederson and Poirier said.

The money for the repairs and abatements will come from federal
highway money and flood bonding money from the state of Minnesota,
Peterson said.

Beyond the cleanup, the floods may have caused an environmental
hazard.  The gushing water from the floods blew what Poirier
described as a "significant sized hole" in the Armory basement
that now looks directly into Chester Creek below.

That hole could allow potentially hazardous materials to get into
the creek, which flows into Lake Superior.  Environmental
assessment reports conducted in 2000 and 2001 have found not only
high amounts of asbestos in the basement, but also lead in the
soil from when that part of the building was used as a shooting
range.  Those hazards have never been abated.

Heidi Kroening, the compliance and enforcement supervisor for the
MPCA, said the agency wasn't aware of the potential environmental
hazards at the Armory before being contacted by the News Tribune.
As a result, she said the agency will inspect the site.

She said there are concerns about both asbestos and lead getting
into Chester Creek.

The Armory was first condemned for demolition in 2000, but an
effort was made by city officials to study what it would cost to
repair and re-use the building.

A Jan. 31, 2001 study found several thousand square feet of
asbestos throughout the building, while also finding visible
pieces of lead from soil samples in the basement of the building
and the potential for lead dust.  An April 22, 2002 report on the
potential re-use of the Armory conducted by the city of Duluth
Planning Department estimated the cost to abate the asbestos
throughout the building at $235,000, and the cost to abate the
lead in the basement at $1.3 million.

The report noted that if the building was re-used then all the
lead in the basement might not need to be removed.  It could be
possible, the report noted, to remove only the top few inches of
soil; a cost estimate for that work was not provided.

There also could be costs to clean up sewage that made it into the
building after the flood.  Areas of the basement tested positive
for coliform and e-coli bacteria, which Poirier said was caused by
sewage mixing with storm water and getting into the building from
the flood.

He said volunteers cleaned out and abated the sewage and other
damage on the first floor of the building.

"We're done with the portions we can do," he said.

The city's Building Appeals Board granted a six-month stay for
demolition of the building during a meeting in August, after
Poirier told the board before the flood the AAMC was making
progress on making the building fit for commercial use.

He told the board a six-month extension would allow the AAMC time
to get the building "back to pre-flood condition" but now says he
expects that to take longer, possibly into the spring, due to the
work required.

Even if the Armory is able to get the building back to pre-flood
conditions, Poirier estimates it will be another year and a half
before it's able to open for commercial use.

He says funding for the work needed for that to happen is
contingent on the Armory signing a tenant.  Once that happens,
Poirier said money from that lease would go toward remodeling the
building and getting it up to code.

Ultimately, Poirier said the Armory will be used as a commercial
space and a center for the arts, education and music.  The front
portion facing Lake Superior would be for commercial space while
the remainder would be used by nonprofits dedicated to the arts,
Poirier said.

Because the building is under a condemnation order, only city
personnel, owners of the building and professional building
contractors are allowed inside.  That is making it difficult to
find a tenant, Poirier said.  He said he's hoping to get
permission from the city sometime this month to allow potential
tenants to tour the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitch Eyes Fibro Reserve Deficit for US Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings estimates industry asbestos reserves to be deficient
by $2 billion to $8 billion at year-end 2011.  Asbestos reserves
make up approximately 4% of total property/casualty industry
reserves with approximately 50% of reserves concentrated in five
insurers.

In a new report, Fitch examines a range of loss scenarios and
future payments for asbestos losses up to an ultimate industry
loss of $85 billion.  Based on recent development experience and
its latest analysis of loss payment scenarios, Fitch's target
industry survival ratio is 11x-14x.

The reported industry survival ratio for asbestos liabilities
increased modestly to 10.3x in 2011 from 10.1x in 2010 and 9.9x in
2009, indicating that incurred losses have expanded at a faster
rate than paid losses in recent years.  Fitch's analysis reveals
that the (re)insurance industry remains strongly capitalized with
the capacity to absorb future asbestos claims without risk of
material capital depletion.

While Fitch does not anticipate broad rating actions related to
asbestos, the ratings of individual companies could be adversely
affected by the severity of reserve deficiencies relative to
capital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Starts Online Permit and Notification Service
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Laurel Outlook reports The Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) has launched a new Asbestos Project Permit and
Demolition Notification online service.  Now asbestos project
permits and demolition notifications can be submitted through the
DEQ Web site and mobile devices including smartphones and other
handheld or tablet devices.  The service is located at
http://www.deq.mt.gov/Asbestos

Asbestos Project Permits and Demolition Notifications are required
prior to the demolition or renovation of commercial buildings to
protect both workers and the public from the release of
potentially hazardous asbestos containing materials.

Other benefits of the online service include application error
reduction and mobile access so that contractors can submit permit
applications and notifications right from the work site.

Contractors access the online permit by logging into the Asbestos
Project Permit Application Service using a secure login and
password at https://app.mt.gov/AsbestosPermits  Once logged in,
the contractor will select the type of application -- project
permit, demolition notification, or a combination of the two.
Contractors then are guided through the application process with
easy-to-use navigation and a chance to review, edit and save the
application before submitting it.

Contractors who use the online service will be able to pay online
via electronic check or credit card, including Visa, MasterCard,
and Discover.  Throughout the process, the automated system will
update contractors via e-mail of their application process,
submission and acceptance.  Approved permits will be e-mailed to
the contractor.

For more information about the service and information about
asbestos regulations in Montana, please visit the DEQ Web site at
http://www.deq.mt.govor call the DEQ Waste and Underground Tank
Management Program at 406-444-5300.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Ketchikan Hospital Demolition Begins January
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press (Alaska) reports that Ketchikan's former
hospital could tumble down sometime in January.  City officials
hope it falls as the result of work by a demolition crew, not a
collapse.

The Ketchikan City Council was previously awarded a $685,300
demolition contract to BAM, LLC, to tear down the building.  The
Ketchikan Daily News (http://bit.ly/V0tU3n)reports workers will
take a weeklong course on asbestos disposal before starting the
job.

"My guess is it will be about the middle of January before we get
in the building and start tearing it down," said BAM spokesman
Mark Johnson.

The four-story downtown building, converted into the Bawden Street
Apartments, was declared a public emergency last year.  City
officials noticed it was changing shape.

"Sagging in the roof, deflection in the walls," said Public Works
Director Clif Allen on Wednesday, Nov. 28.  Walls have bulged out
as much as 18 inches, he said.

The asbestos containment class for his crew ends Jan. 11.

Asbestos is fire-resistant and the material was formerly used in
building construction.  Loose fibers can cause health problems
including mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer.  Asbestos in
buildings as old as the former hospital often is found in settled
dust, Johnson said.

The building's deteriorating condition and the imminent danger of
collapse makes it too dangerous to enter and remove the asbestos,
Johnson said.  The company instead will treat the entire structure
as if it is contaminated.

The company will use fire hoses to keep the building wet and dust
inert.  Johnson said.  Ketchikan's traditional rainy January
weather may help, he said.

After soaking the wood-frame structure, workers plan to collapse
the center first.  That should pull the outer walls inward to
prevent them from falling into adjacent properties, Johnson said.

He estimated the company will need 10 to 14 days to complete
demolition and two more weeks to haul material to a landfill.

Rubble will be enveloped in plastic sheeting to keep asbestos from
escaping.

"There'll be a considerable amount of trucking up to the dump,"
Johnson said.  "It's not very heavy material, it's just bulky."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Black & Decker (US), 27 Others Face Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Scott Depot
couple is suing 28 companies they claim are responsible for a lung
cancer diagnosis.

Allen Johnson claims he was exposed to large quantities of
asbestos-containing products during his career and was diagnosed
with lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases, in a lawsuit
filed Nov. 16 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Johnson and his wife, Janet Canterbury Johnson, claim the
defendants required Allen Johnson to handle products containing
asbestos and exposed him to other asbestos products present in the
workplace.

The defendants failed to timely and adequately warn Allen Johnson
of the dangers of asbestos and failed to provide him with
information as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient
wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliances,
according to the suit.

The Johnsons claim the 28 defendants failed to take reasonable
precautions or exercise reasonable care to publish, adopt and
enforce a safety plan and/or safe method of handling and
installing asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

The defendants' actions were negligent and in flagrant disregard
for the rights of others and with an awareness on their part that
their conduct would result in human deaths and/or great bodily
harm, according to the suit.

The Johnsons are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest.  They are being represented by
James M. Barber.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 28 companies named as defendants in the suit are 3M
Corporation; A.O. Smith; Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.; Blue Bird
Corporation; Blue Bird Motor Company; Borg Warner Morse Tec, Inc.;
CBS Corp.; Certainteed Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Ford
Motor Company; Genuine Auto Parts; Georgia-Pacific Corporation;
Honeywell International, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation;
Ingersoll-Rand Company; Kelsey-Hayes Company; Maremont
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Ohio Valley
Insulating Company, Inc.; Pneumo-Abex Corporation; Rockwell
Automations, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; State Electric
Supply Company; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.; UB West Virginia, Inc.;
Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Company; Vimasco Corporation;
and West Virginia Electric Supply Company.

Case number: 12-C-2305.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oswego DSS Office Moves to Fulton for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNY Central reports that the Oswego County Department of Social
Services says it is temporarily closing its office in Mexico for
asbestos abatement.

The DSS office will relocate to the former Cayuga Community
College facility on state Route 3 in Fulton on Dec. 14 and remain
there until abatement is complete in early May, 2013.

The move will take place over three days; Dec. 12-15 and DSS
offices will be closed Dec. 17 while staff moves into the
temporary office.  The offices will open at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday,
Dec. 18 in Fulton.

Gregg Heffner, Commissioner of Social Services, says that office
hours and all phone numbers for DSS will remain the same.  Heffner
say public transportation bus routes will not be affected by the
move and people can pick up the Oswego County public
transportation service at the Mexico DSS office.

Oswego County Administrator Philip Church announced in March that
testing revealed asbestos levels above the federal limit were
present in ceiling tiles in the older part of the Mexico building,
which was constructed in 1973.

Church said that the ceiling tiles pose no health threat unless
they are damaged or moved; however, the tiles must be moved to
access the building's mechanical and communications systems.

The project is expected to be completed in early May, 2013, and
was previously estimated to cost up to $800,000 or more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnt Fibro in Razed Distillery Investigated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halesowen News (UK) reports that the revelation that asbestos was
burning in Monday's (Nov. 26) giant Oldbury fire could spark
another evacuation of houses around the destroyed distillery.

Sandwell Council have confirmed investigations are being
undertaken into the effect of asbestos being burnt in the roof of
the Alcohols Ltd building.

Some families are still unable to return home after the giant
blaze but there are worries residents who have been allowed back
in will have to leave again due to the asbestos.

Cars were damaged, windows melted and fixtures and fittings
outside houses surrounding the Hall Street factory were burnt due
to the ferocity of the blaze, which was started due to the
movement of chemicals.

A Sandwell Council spokesman said: "Some residents remain unable
to access their properties at Crosswells Road, Hall Street and
Trident Drive; The police, contractors and surveyors will decide
when the residents will be allowed back in to their homes;"

"The low grade Asbestos in the roof in the burned out building has
affected properties in Crosswells Road and Hall Street and it is
being assessed by Coleman's Construction now."

The spokesman added: "Residents may need to be moved back out of
their property and some properties outside the cordon may be
affected and are being inspected."

West Midlands Police, West Midlands Fire, Sandwell Council, the
Transport Police, Sandwell Homes and several other agencies all
worked together to deal with the consequences of the fire which
saw residents evacuated, trains stopped and roads closed.

Several of the properties damaged are owned by Trident Housing and
it is currently assessing the damage.

Adam Willis, managing director of Alcohols Ltd, said: "We are
indebted to the swift response of the emergency services for
getting the fire under control.  At this stage our thoughts are
very much with all the residents who have been displaced by the
fire and we are focused on working with the emergency services and
council to ensure that the site is safe, power can be restored and
people can return to their houses."

The helpline for concerned residents is 0121 569 5152.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Proposes Bill Aimed for NHS to Recover Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia McWatt of The Western Mail reports that millions of pounds
could be reclaimed by the NHS in Wales from companies liable for
exposing workers to asbestos, if proposed new legislation is
adopted.

Mick Antoniw, AM for Pontypridd, said that employers -- or their
insurers -- could be forced to pay back up to GBP3m for treatment
costs for employees who develop conditions such as mesothelioma
and asbestosis if his Asbestos (Recovery of Medical Costs) Bill
becomes law.

Mr. Antoniw who, as a former solicitor, represented thousands of
asbestos victims and their families, said that the recovered costs
would then go back into the NHS specifically to serve the needs of
terminally ill patients with asbestos-related conditions.

He said: "If you have an employer or insurer who has accepted that
they are liable and they are to blame, then why is it they will
pick up costs for the private sector, but not the public sector?

"We envisage we could raise around GBP2m-3m a year for support for
victims for things such as nursing care.

"It might not sound a lot, but it will really help a hard-pressed
NHS to help treat people with a disease that has a particular
legacy in Wales."

His Private Member's Bill will be debated in the National Assembly
in December, and Mr. Antoniw is hopeful that it could be law by
summer 2013.

At a briefing on Nov. 28, he said he believed the introduction of
the law would be the "right thing to do" for patients and their
families.

He said: "From the starting point and all along the process, I
have been asking 'Is this right? Is it just? Is it fair?'

"The conclusion that I came to was 'yes'.

"This could really help these people who have been affected by
asbestos."

The event also saw the launch of the Asbestos Awareness and
Support Cymru (AASC) group, which aims to become the leading
connected community to enhance the quality of life for those
living with asbestos related disease in Wales.

Lorna Johns, strategic research and development officer at AASC,
said the recent discovery of asbestos at Cwmcarn High School had
highlighted that the problem was still a major issue.

She said: "The National Assembly is making a great step forward
with the debate over the Asbestos Bill, a move which will help
improve the lives of those diagnosed with asbestos related
illnesses.

"All those interested in asbestos are watching Wales closely for
what could be a momentous decision.

"It may appear that asbestos is not as significant as other health
issues at the moment, but the Cwmcarn High School incident has
brought the issue of asbestos right to the top of the Welsh
headlines.

"We feel that more support is needed for people affected by
asbestos.

"We must ensure that steps to recover financial compensation are
taken swiftly.

"If this goes through, then it will be applauded and it is a flag
to wave in front of other nations."

Susan Morris, general manager for Macmillan Cancer Support in
Wales, said:  "We believe that the Asbestos Bill could have a
significant impact on people diagnosed with mesothelioma as a
result of being exposed to asbestos fibers.

"We are particularly interested in how it is intended that the
costs recovered by the Welsh Government will be used to benefit
asbestos victims and their families, including support for
palliative care and treatment which is vitally important," she
added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St Peter's Seminary in Cardross Contaminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Foulds of The Lennox Herald reports that a "bombshell" has
been dropped after it was revealed that a Cardross "building of
world significance" is riddled with asbestos.

St Peter's Seminary -- considered one of Scotland's great
modernist structures -- has fragments of the hazardous material on
every floor, a report commissioned by owners the Archdiocese of
Glasgow has confirmed.  Public arts charity NVA, which is aiming
to raise GBP10million to help save the crumbling Roman Catholic
seminary, told astonished members of Cardross Community Council.

Chairman Tony Davy said the community council was extremely
concerned for the many ramblers and dog walkers who routinely
visit the site, as well as members of the public who travel
specifically to see the A-listed building and venture inside.

He said concerned community councillors were "amazed" it had only
just been discovered and are demanding to know what is going to be
done about it.  Tony commented: "NVA dropped a bombshell on Monday
night (Nov. 26).  The community council were amazed NVA hadn't
reported it to the council.  NVA say the site is cordoned off but
it is fenced rather than cordoned off.

"Families ramble about up there, as do dog walkers.  People with
the community that have an interest in the building visit it.

"We requested Councillor Richard Trail advise council building
services and we are still waiting on a response."

Surveying practice Asbestos Building Surveys (ABS) discovered the
potentially dangerous asbestos in the building, described by
international architecture conservation organization DOCOMOMO as a
modern "building of world significance."  NVA said the asbestos
removal will take place in spring next year, adding it is the
first crucial step in bringing the building back into public use.

A spokesman said: "All asbestos must be treated with extreme care,
the building is open to the elements and all floors contain
fragments of materials which should not be handled by the public.
The removal of all potentially hazardous material is included in
the first phase of the on-going capital development of the project
and is a positive measure.  The site is already cordoned off to
the public."  An Archdiocese of Glasgow spokesman added: "Over the
years numerous signs have been installed by the Archdiocese on the
perimeter fencing around the building warning the public of the
danger of entering the site, and obviously this is another
significant reason to stay away from the building."

It is understood Argyll and Bute Council has no statutory
requirement to remove the asbestos from the private site and the
only role the authority could have is enforcement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid Slams Claims, Says Substations Are Clean
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denice Barnes for The Express Advocate Gosford Edition (Aus)
reports that electricity distributor Ausgrid has refuted recent
claims that eight substations on the Central Coast contain
dangerous levels of asbestos.

A report in the Express Advocate on Nov. 14 claimed the
substations had been identified as having asbestos present and
being in a "poor" state, with surface damage.

They included Wyong, Vales Point, Charmhaven, Umina Beach, Peats
Ridge, Noraville, Lisarow and Avoca Beach.  The information was
sourced from Ausgrid's own asbestos register supplied by the
Electrical Trades Union.

Ausgrid chief operating officer Trevor Armstrong said the
information used in the article was published more than 10 years
ago.

"Ausgrid took the safe steps needed to clean any asbestos material
that was deemed a health risk," Mr. Armstrong said.

"The material published in media reports was from 2002.  Over the
past 12 months independent hygienist reports have been undertaken
showing the substations are safe."

He said two of the substations named in the article, Wyong and
Charmhaven, were commissioned in 2001 and constructed with
asbestos-free materials, and audits in 2009 and 2012 confirmed
there was no asbestos present.

He said the other six zone substations had all be inspected and
audited over the past 12 months by an independent professional
hygienist.  He said no friable asbestos was uncovered in any of
the eight Central Coast substations.

One substation did have broken fibro material containing asbestos
in the ceiling space.  It was described as being in poor condition
and the material was being removed this month.

"Ausgrid has been working for more than 10 years to identify the
areas where asbestos was present . . . and to safely remove it,"
he said.

Safety Audit

The Electrical Trades Union, energy providers including Ausgrid
and regulators recently met Energy Minister Chris Hartcher over
the asbestos issue.

Mr. Hartcher said: "WorkCover has agreed to oversee an audit to
determine the extent of the presence of asbestos in the
electricity industry."

He said the government acknowledged that this was an ongoing
process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Urged to Enlist Fibro Under Rotterdam Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News (Aus) reports that unless the asbestos industry is shut
down worldwide, hundreds of millions of workers in developing
countries will be struck with disease, a union forum has heard.

As part of asbestos awareness week Larry Stoffman, a Canadian
anti-asbestos campaigner, is touring Australia speaking to various
unions to thank them for their support and urge them to continue
fighting against use of the deadly material.

At Unions NSW forum in Sydney on Thursday, Nov. 29, he said unless
the asbestos industry around the world was shut down "we can look
forward to hundreds of millions of workers being struck with
asbestos related diseases in the next 10, 20, 30 years."

Unions NSW also used the forum to call on the Commonwealth
government to put pressure on Canada to support the inclusion of
asbestos in an international convention.

It would ensure shared responsibility for the exportation of
hazardous material, Unions NSW said.

Although it has stopped mining asbestos, Canada is the only G8
country that has "actively objected the listing of chrysotile
asbestos fibers on the Rotterdam Convention", Unions NSW added.

The union wants Foreign Minister Bob Carr to insist the Canadian
government support the inclusion of asbestos in the convention
when the next meeting is held in May 2013.

Mr. Stoffman has also called on Australia to host a meeting with
governments from around the region aimed at ending the use of
asbestos.

He wants Australia and Canada to step up financial contributions
to communities in developing regions to help them become asbestos
free and assist with the health consequences of its use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Commonwealth, MassDEP Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Swampscott Reporter, a demolition company from
Swampscott has been ordered to pay the Commonwealth $100,000 in
civil penalties for the alleged improper removal and disposal of
asbestos-containing waste at locations throughout eastern
Massachusetts, including the Hook Lobster Company building on
the Boston waterfront, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced
Nov. 29.

According to the complaint, Total Dismantling and Carting
Services, Inc., and its successor, The Total Group, Inc., both of
Swampscott, violated the state's Clean Air Act by repeatedly
removing and disposing of asbestos-containing material without
notifying the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
that the work was going to occur.  The Clean Air Act requires
notifications to MassDEP to ensure that demolition and renovation
companies are properly handling and disposing of asbestos.

"Companies are not permitted to risk public health, safety, or the
environment by failing to properly handle asbestos or by failing
to disclose when they are working at demolition sites that involve
asbestos," AG Coakley said.  "It is especially important to take
the proper precautions in a heavily traveled area like the Boston
waterfront."

"MassDEP works to ensure that asbestos-containing materials are
identified and properly removed, handled, packaged and stored in
accordance with the regulations," said MassDEP Commissioner
Kenneth Kimmell.  "Failure to follow the right procedures is an
extremely serious oversight that potentially exposes workers and
the general public to a known carcinogen and inevitably results in
significant penalty exposure for the violator."

The complaint also alleges that Total Dismantling and Carting
Services and Removal Specialists demolished the former Hook
Lobster Building in 2008 after it burned in a fire without
removing all of the asbestos-containing material first and without
notifying MassDEP that it was going to perform the work.

Additionally, the company allegedly failed to use the proper
containment procedures at the Hook Lobster demolition site and
during transport to an unpermitted storage site in Revere.

The consent judgment, approved in Suffolk Superior Court today,
requires Total Dismantling and Carting Services Inc., and the
Total Group to pay a civil penalty of $100,000 for their share of
the violations involving the Hook site as well as violations at
three other demolition sites in Saugus, Malden and Swampscott.

Half of that amount in the settlement is suspended provided the
companies comply with the judgment and commit no further
violations during a 5-year probationary period.

Assistant Attorney General Louis Dundin, of the AG's Environmental
Protection Division, is representing the Commonwealth in the
litigation.  Attorney Colleen McConnell is handling the case for
MassDEP, along with environmental analysts John MacAuley and Karen
Golden-Smith of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Milford Resolves Abatement Issue on Lot Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Devencentis for NorthJersey.com News reports that the New
Milford governing body has approved a measure that tacks on a
condition of asbestos removal to its agreement to buy property on
Steuben Avenue.

At its work session on Nov. 12, the Borough Council unanimously
passed a resolution authorizing Mayor Ann Subrizi to sign the
rider to contract of sale of 1033 Steuben Ave., commonly known as
the Van Eck property.

The stipulation states that the seller, Margaret Healy, of Pacific
Street, must remove asbestos from the property prior to closing
with the borough.

A 2-1/2 story house exists on the property, which is less than an
acre.

The house will be razed by the borough after the asbestos is
removed.

The property abuts the Hackensack River and New Milford Woods, a
7-1/2 acre tract that the borough preserved with a county grant in
1999.

The Van Eck property will be added to the borough's open space
inventory.

According to the resolution, the rider increases the contract
price to cover half of the cost of the asbestos removal.

The borough agreed to buy the property in August 2011 for $60,000.

The cost of the property is being subsidized through a $50,000
grant the borough received from the Bergen County Open Space,
Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Integrates Fibro With Emergency Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green of The Inverell Times reports that an expert on
asbestos, Darryl Dixon is undertaking a Masters of Emergency
Management at Charles Sturt University and he was in Inverell on
Nov. 27.

He is with the Australian Graduate School of Policing at Manly and
currently working on a thesis that looks into the exposure of
emergency services to asbestos, but his research is wide-ranging.

"A lot of people believe it (asbestos) was something used in the
'40s after World War II and it basically doesn't exist anymore,"
Mr. Dixon said.

"People who weren't of that generation have no idea what it looks
like because it's no longer produced and its use is very rare.  In
2003 it was completely banned in Australia, so anyone born from
the 1980's onwards has probably never seen a house made of
asbestos or made the decision to use asbestos knowingly in their
house.

"Asbestos was used in products from toaster ovens to break gaskets
to adding in bathrooms, kitchens were made of it, even to the
backyard toilet."

Mr. Dixon said it is predicted that one in four houses built
before 1983 have it in some form.

"At the moment there's a strong emphasis on do it yourself
renovators who aren't aware of what asbestos is and what products
it was put into," Mr. Dixon said.

"The asbestos issue has started to increase in relation to
asbestosis and mesothelioma diagnosis . . . which can take up to
20 to 30 years to manifest.

"Unfortunately it's predicted in the next 20 years it'll overtake
most other forms of cancer, including heart disease and lung
diseases as a form of killer."

Mr. Dixon was in Inverell at the invitation of Rural Fire Service
(RFS) Inspector Konrad Sawczynski to speak at an emergency
services workshop held in the SES Headquarters building in
conjunction with Asbestos Awareness Week.

". . . it's a prime opportune time to raise awareness that we may
have asbestos involved in some of the incidents we respond to,"
Inspector Sawczynski said.

"We're looking at any house built before 2003 may contain
asbestos, so we take protective measures . . . in that we treat
all of them as if they have asbestos in them.  "It's part of our
role now that we deal with not only the fire but the asbestos side
of it as well."

Inspector Sawczynski said he thinks public awareness of the danger
is very low.

"I don't think the true dangers of asbestos are that widespread in
the public," he said.

"People are aware of asbestos, but I don't think they are aware of
just how dangerous it can be.

"I think because it's a long-term killer and a silent killer that
that level of awareness isn't where it should be, unfortunately."

Mr. Dixon said his thesis is looking into Australia's first known
research comparing emergency services nationwide and their
policies, procedures and training into asbestos incidents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loyd E. Mitchell Can Implement Insurers' Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Nancy V. Alquist lifted the automatic stay in the
asbestos-related Chapter 11 case of Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., to
permit the implementation of a settlement agreement reached
earlier in the case.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that formerly
operated a mechanical contracting business in the Baltimore
metropolitan area.  Since it ceased operations in 1976 and
liquidated its operating assets, it has been primarily consumed by
defending against asbestos-related personal injury claims and
dealing with insurance coverage issues.

The extent to which insurance policies written by Maryland
Casualty Company provide coverage for asbestos claims is the
subject of litigation in the Circuit Court for Harford County,
Maryland.  Additional parties have joined in the Harford County
Litigation to preserve and protect their rights, including a
putative class of asbestos personal injury claimants, as well as
additional insurers.  The Harford County Litigation presided over
by the Honorable William O. Carr, is in some state of being
certified as a class action lawsuit.

The settling parties are Maryland Casualty Company; The Travelers
Indemnity Company; the Debtor; and the Law Offices of Peter G.
Angelos, P.C. on behalf of certain clients with asbestos-related
claims. The settlement agreement would resolve more than 9,000
outstanding Asbestos Claims against the Debtor.  The Settlement
Agreement would also resolve Maryland Casualty's outstanding
claims against the Debtor for reimbursement and breach of an
earlier settlement agreement between the parties.  In addition,
the Settlement Agreement would resolve a number of other matters
that are pending in the bankruptcy case including the (1) Joint
Motion of Debtor and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to
Dismiss Chapter 11 Case, (2) the Cross Motion to Appoint Trustee
filed by Maryland Casualty, and (3) the Insurers' Joint
Liquidating Plan.

The Settling Parties previously sought relief from the bankruptcy
stay (1) to submit the Settlement Agreement for Approval to the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a determination if the
amounts proposed to be paid to the settling claimants are fair and
reasonable, (2) if approval was obtained from the Baltimore City
Court, for leave to go to Judge Carr to request permission to
dismiss the claims they have against each other in the Harford
County Litigation, including the claims for coverage by the
settling asbestos claimants, and (3) to pay the claims being
settled.

The Court lifted the stay to permit the parties to seek the
approval of Judge Carr in the Harford County Litigation as to the
fairness and appropriateness of the Settlement Agreement, and also
to seek the approval of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City of the
terms of the payment of the individual claims.  The Court did not
authorize any claims to be paid at that time.

Subsequently, the parties obtained an order approving the
settlement terms from each of the two state courts. The parties
now return to the Bankruptcy Court Court to seek authorization to
consummate the Settlement Agreement, including the payment of
claims.

A copy of Judge Alquist's Nov. 29, 2012 Memorandum Order is
available at http://is.gd/OLs2zgfrom Leagle.com.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr.
D. Md. Case No. 06-13250) on June 6, 2006.  Judge Nancy V. Alquist
oversees the case.  Mark J. Friedman, Esq., at DLA Piper Rudnick
Gray Cary US LLP, serves as the Debtor's counsel.  In its
petition, the Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in both
assets and debts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wallace & Gale Trust Blocks PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the decision of
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting summary judgment in
favor of The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust in a
consolidated case in which personal representatives of the estates
of four decedents were seeking to hold the Trust liable for paying
a portion of judgments previously entered in favor of the
representatives in earlier asbestos litigation.  In 1984, W & G
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and as a consequence,
was not a party to the four asbestos cases at the time when the
representatives obtained judgments against other parties.

The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust is the successor to
Wallace & Gale, a Baltimore-based insulation contractor that
installed asbestos-containing products at various locations in the
Baltimore region, including at Bethlehem Steel facilities.  The
Trust moved for Summary Judgment against various asbestos
plaintiffs on the grounds that their cases have been tried to
final judgment against other defendants, while Wallace & Gale was
in bankruptcy.  The Plaintiffs oppose the Motions claiming they
should be permitted to recover additional money for the same
injury from the Trust.

Wallace & Gale remained under the protection of the Bankruptcy
Court until 2006. When that Court confirmed their Plan, the
Company emerged in the form of the Trust, an entity whose only
potential assets were insurance policies that could fund the Trust
in order to pay asbestos claims.

According to the Maryland Appeals Court, the circuit court
correctly ruled that final judgment rule precludes further
litigation seeking further compensation for the same injuries from
further defendants. The circuit court did not err in granting the
Trust's motion for summary judgment.

The case is CHARLES T. BRANNAN, JR., et al., v. WALLACE & GALE
ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, No. 2287, September Term 2012 (Md. App.
Ct.).  A copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2012 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/CtxQhPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Date of Disablement Ruling v. Astro
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Nov. 8, 2012 memorandum and order, the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, affirmed a
Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination that, based upon
an independent medical examination, claimant James Ward suffered
from asbestosis with a date of disablement of May 17, 2006, and
that, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law Sec. 44-a, the
claimant experienced the last injurious exposure to asbestos
during his employment with Astro Fuel Service Company.

In its ruling, the Appellate Court noted that when a claimant
suffers his or her last injurious exposure to a dust hazard
pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law Sec. 44-a is a question of
fact for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be
disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.  In the instant
case, the claimant testified that Astro was the last employer for
which he worked prior to his date of disablement, that he had been
exposed to asbestos while so employed and that, despite performing
some work on his own after leaving Astro, he had not been exposed
to asbestos.  While a representative of Astro testified that
claimant was not exposed to asbestos during his employment there,
credibility determinations and the resolution of conflicting
evidence are within the exclusive province of the Board, the
Appellate Court ruled.  Thus, despite the existence of evidence
that would have supported a contrary conclusion, the Board's
decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Appellate Court
concluded.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JAMES WARD, Claimant, v.
GENERAL UTILITIES ET AL., Respondents, AND NY CHOICE SELF-
INSURANCE TRUST ET AL., Appellants, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
Respondent, 512606 (N.Y.).  A copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QhS20Efrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Says Children Are Claimant's Heirs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Easter I. Collins, as survivor to her husband, William L. Collins,
inherited $46,711 from settlements on Mr. Collins' asbestos-
related wrongful death claim.  Ms. Collins was named survivor
despite the presence of Mr. Collins three children from a previous
marriage.  When Ms. Collins died, her daughter, Gloria Shurelds,
applied to be appointed as the successor administrator of Collins'
estate.  One of Mr. Collins' children, Eddis, filed her own motion
to be named administrator of her father's estate.  Following a
trial, a trial court determined that Collins' heirs at law were
Easter and his three children.  The administrator of Easter's
estate, Lee Tolbert, appealed from the judgment.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen County, in an
opinion dated Nov. 13, 2012, affirmed the trial court's ruling
after determining that there is more than sufficient evidence to
support the trial court's finding.  The evidence in the case
established that the Collins' children were all children of
Williams Collins and that no question of paternity was ever raised
by anyone.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: WILLIAM L. COLLINS,
SR. [LEE TOLBERT, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EASTER I. SMITH-
APPELLANT, No. 1-11-63 (Ohio Appt. Ct.).  A copy of the Court's
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/HzQrAdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Ordered to Insure Alfa Laval
-------------------------------------------------------
Alfa Laval Inc. filed an action seeking insurance coverage under
policies issued by several companies, including Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company and OneBeacon America Insurance Company, for
asbestos bodily injury claims brought against Alfa Laval and its
predecessor in name, DeLaval, as well as Alfa Laval's historical
competitor, a company named Sharples, Inc., which assets Alfa
Laval acquired in 1988.

In a decision dated Nov. 13, 2012, the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, held that in this
case, affirmed a lower court's ruling holding that although the
pro rata sharing of defense costs may be ordered when more than
one policy is triggered by a claim, in the interest of judicial
economy, the lower court did not err in declining to order such
sharing at this time, with the understanding that Travelers, Alfa
Laval's longest standing insurer, may later obtain contribution
from other insurers on applicable policies.

The Appellate Division, however, agreed with OneBeacon that the
court's ruling was inconsistent to the extent that both Travelers
and OneBeacon cannot viably provide Alfa Laval's complete defense
if both their policies are implicated by the same underlying
action.  In that case, Travelers, as the long standing insurer,
should provide a complete defense, and OneBeacon may eventually be
required to contribute to both defense costs and indemnification
on a pro rata basis, the Appellate Division held.

The case TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS
THE AETNA CASULTY INSURITY COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. ALFA LAVAL INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE DeLAVAL SEPERATOR
COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants, OneBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellant, 8484, 650667/09 (N.Y.).  A copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/vg8pZ2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants More Time to Perfect Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, enlarged the time to perfect an appeal to the March
2013 Term in the case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION --
DUMMITT. v. A.W. CHESTERTON -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-4595
(N.Y.).  A copy of the Decision dated Nov. 15, 2012, is available
at http://is.gd/TCt3uofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Affirms Judgment Favoring Kemper, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Femand Fortune Bougere was employed by Avondale Shipyards, Inc.,
from 1945 until his retirement as a welding supervisor in 1986.
During his employment, Mr. Bougere was exposed to asbestos fibers
allegedly causing him to contract mesothelioma from which he died
in 2010.  The following year, Mr. Bougere's surviving wife and
children filed suit against Kemper Insurance Group, The Travelers
Indemnity Company, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, as
Avondale's executive officers' insurers, asserting both survival
and wrongful death claims.

Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action as to
plaintiffs' wrongful death claims, asserting that Avondale's
executive officers are granted tort immunity.  The trial court
conducted a hearing and sustained defendants' exception of no
cause of action, dismissing plaintiffs' wrongful death claims.
Because the judgment granting defendants' exception of no cause of
action did not dispose of all claims in litigation, plaintiffs
filed a motion to have the judgment designated final, which the
trial court granted.  The Plaintiffs then appealed.

In a Nov. 13, 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Fifth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's decision holding that
the post-amendment law applies in this case, extending tort
immunity to Avondale's executive officers and barring the
Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against the Defendants.



The case is MILDRED M. BOUGERE, VICKI BOUGERE FLEMING, WILLIAM R.
E. BOUGERE AND GARY BOUGERE, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS
CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR TO AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC.) AVONDALE
SHIPYARDS INC., KEMPER INSURANCE GROUP, TRAVELERS INSURANCE
COMPANY AND COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 12-CA-181 (La.
App. Ct.).  A copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/8MDv61from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Orders New Trial on Suit v. AstenJohnson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Barabin was exposed to asbestos from 1964 through 1984.  He
was employed from 1968 until his retirement in 2001 at the Crown-
Zellerbach paper mill, which used dryer felts containing asbestos
supplied by AstenJohnson, Inc., and Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc.
During his employment, Henry worked in various jobs that exposed
him to the dryer felts that AstenJohnson and Scapa provided.
Henry also took pieces of dryer felt home to use in his garden.

In November, 2006, Henry was diagnosed with pleural malignant
epithelial mesothelioma.  It is undisputed that exposure to
respirable asbestos causes mesothelioma.

AstenJohnson and Scapa appeal a district court's entry of judgment
in favor of Henry and Geraldine Barabin following a jury trial
resolving Henry Barabin's claim that his mesothelioma was caused
by occupational exposure to asbestos.  AstenJohnson and Scapa
contend that the district court abused its discretion by
improperly admitting expert evidence.

In a Nov. 16, 2012, Opinion, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and
remanded the case for a new trial for the district court's failure
to fulfill its obligations under Daubert.  Because no Daubert was
conducted as requested, the district court failed to assess the
scientific methodologies, reasoning, or principles applied by the
experts presented by the Plaintiffs.

The cases are HENRY BARABIN; GERALDINE BARABIN, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. ASTENJOHNSON, INC., Defendant-Appellant and HENRY
BARABIN; GERALDINE BARABIN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ASTENJOHNSON,
INC., Defendant, and SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC., Defendant-
Appellant, Nos. 10-36142, 11-35020 (9th Cir.).  A copy of the
Decision is at http://is.gd/UylhoWfrom Leagle.com.


                           *********

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  * * *