CAR_Public/121221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, December 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 253

                             Headlines

A.R.M. SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Radiation Suit Dismissal Bid
BANK OF AMERICA: Texas Counties Lose Class Certification Bid
BASF: New Jersey Judge Dismisses Asbestos Class Action
BEEBE MEDICAL: Bradley Settlement Implementation Questions Linger

CHICAGO: Firefighters Lose Bid to Intervene in Class Action
CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 2,000 Catalina Outdoor Fireplaces
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Still Awaits Okay of "Wolfgeher" Suit Deal
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Adelphia Suit Settlements Pending Appeal
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Dismissal Pending

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeal in Research-Related Suit Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals in Mortgage Crisis Suits Pending
CREDIT SUISSE: Lawyer Faces Charges Over Alleged Scam
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: "Bartlett" Suit Settled/Dismissed in Sept.

DIRECTV: Appeal in Early Cancellation Fees Suit Remains Pending
DIRECTV: Received Final Judgment in Liberty Merger-Related Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of "CreditBuilder"
DYNEGY INC: Appeal in "Silsby" Class Action Suit Remains Pending
ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: March 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

FIDELITY: Sued for Wrongfully Denying Hurricane-Related Claims
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Seeks Recusal of Judge Carol Higbee in MDL
HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Stability-Assist System
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Deceptive Suncreen Product Labels

LG CHEM: Fixes Prices of Lithium Ion Batteries, Class Suit Says
LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls 457,000 Top-Loading Washing Machines
MIDWEST GENERATION: Two Negligence Suits Still Pending in Ill.
MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Narrows Claims in Overtime Class Action
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Kerr & Wagstaffe Comments on Red Light Suit

NORCO BICYCLES: Recalls 90 Havoc Bicycles Due to Risk of Injury
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Annuity Class Action Remains in Federal Court
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: No Order on Plea to Dismiss "Primo" Suit Yet
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Court Allows Shareholders to Amend Suit
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 82 Pro-RMK 600 and 800 Snowmobiles

PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Securities Suit Still in Prelim. Stages
SALLIE MAE: Students File Class Action Over Abetted Fraud
SHAW GROUP: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over CB&I Sale
SOLTA MEDICAL: "Aesthera" Suit Settlement Funds Paid Out
SOLTA MEDICAL: Consumer Suit vs. Reliant Tech. Still Pending

ST. JUDE: Continues to Defend Silzone-Related Suits in Canada
ST. JUDE: Discovery Phase in March 2010 Securities Suit Ongoing
ST. JUDE: June 2012 Securities Class Suit Dismissed in August
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in FCRA Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Garza" Class Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Minimum Wage Suits Pending in Calif. & Ore.
TRANSUNION HOLDING: Appeals From "White" Suit Deal Remain Pending
TRANSUNION HOLDING: Still Defends Virginia Public Records Suit
UNITED SITE: Sued for Failure to Provide Valid Rest Periods
VITACOST.COM INC: Appeal From "Miyahira" Suit Dismissal Pending

WILIER TRIESTINA: Recalls 200 Izoard XP Bicycles Due to Fall Risk

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison & CECONY Each Had $10MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Still Defends Steam Main Rupture Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Date in Fibro Suit vs. ACE Set for May 20
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 29 Pending Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Accrued $235MM for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Still Defending Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Continues to Defend Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi & NL Unit Still Defending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Corp. Had Net Reserves of $393.7MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon & Units Continue to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge Still Defending 37 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Still Defending 25 Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 46,060 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Junks CBS, et al. Summary Judgment Bids
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joinder Motions in Ferguson v. AC and S Suit Ok'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Dist. Ct. Adopts Magistrate Judge's Reports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Metro-North, et al.'s Dismissal Bids

ASBESTOS UPDATE: S.C. Ct. Recommends Dismissal of Suit v. Wachovia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of 4 Claims v. Wallace & Gale Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX v. Lawyers Suit to Proceed to Jury Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Directs Insurers to Pay Union Carbide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Friable Fibro at Methuen High to Be Sealed-In

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Governor to Sign Anti-Double-Dipping Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Chief Federal Judge Tackles Montevallo Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Committee Examines ARD Cost Recovery Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nakasuk Elementary Abatement Nears Completion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Partly Blamed for Carpenter's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Bags of Fibro Found Under Winnipeg School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Exposes Workers at Aberystwyth Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scrappers Stir Up Fibro, Cleanup to Cost $78K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Putative Class Action Against BASF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Camp Roberts Demolition Process Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: USS Enterprise Vets Now Suffer ARD, Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norwell Joins in AHERA Awareness Training
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ozaukee County Cited for Breach of Abatement Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies Choose State Payout Over Court Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texans Oppose Anti-Double-Dipping Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apex Sues Insurer for Breach of Coverage Terms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Clarifies Alleged Court Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tons of Toxic Fibro Dumped in Central Sydney
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Soil Shipment to Port Kembla Terminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Revives Dormant Cases of 13,000+ Claimants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PAR Applies for 10-Ton HazMat Transfer Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Lodge Refurbishments Project Put on Hold
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northfield Depot Group Gets $7,000 Abatement Fund
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Face $11BB Loss to Fibro-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staffordshire Council Fined for Health Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Stirs Up Fibro at North Bend Airport
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Sandy Rebuilders Warned of Hidden Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Brace Against Toxic Dust Storm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Best Expects Insurance Losses to Top $85-Bil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $20 Million Camp Roberts Demolition Plan Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guernsey's Princess Elizabeth Hospital Abated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Webster Village Hall Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pleural Mesothelioma Kills Ex-Little Lever Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Relocates Paterson Recreation Division
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulburn Mulwaree to Take in Yass Valley's Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Paper Mill, 30 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 64 Pembrokeshire Schools Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Shipyard Worker Wins ARD Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Albans' Odyssey Cinema's Abatement Ongoing

                          *********



A.R.M. SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Jakub, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those
similarly situated v. A.R.M. Solutions, Inc.; Brad Jadwin; James
Montgomery, Case No. 3:12-cv-06113 (N.D. Calif., December 3, 2012)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,
the California Civil Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' unlawful and unfair debt
collection practices, Mr. Jakub contends.  Specifically, he
alleges, the Defendants employ abusive debt collection methods in
violation of state and federal law, and a United States Bankruptcy
Court order, by engaging in a pattern of attempting to collect
unauthorized amounts, failing to provide adequate notice and
verification of debt, and failing to comply with the terms and
conditions of a United States Bankruptcy Court order.

Mr. Jakub is a resident of Brentwood, California.

A.R.M. is a California corporation based in Camarillo, California.
The Individual Defendants are residents of California, and
principals and officers of A.R.M.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  kristen@gutridesafier.com


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Radiation Suit Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Babcock & Wilcox Company is still awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in Tennessee,
according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In June 2011, approximately 18 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit styled
as a "class action" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee against Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., B&W,
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. ("B&W PGG"), Babcock
& Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc. ("B&W TSG"), NOG-Erwin
Holdings, Inc. and others relating to the operation of the NFS
facility in Erwin, Tennessee.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
and punitive damages alleging personal injuries and property
damage resulting primarily from alleged releases of radioactive
and other hazardous materials as a result of operations at the
facility.  In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
the original complaint increasing the number of plaintiffs to
approximately 140, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  The
hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on June 28,
2012.  No ruling has yet been issued by the court.  The Company
says this matter is still in its early stages.  No discovery has
been conducted and no trial date has been set.  The ultimate
outcome of these proceedings is uncertain and an adverse ruling,
should coverage not be available, could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operations and cash flow.


BANK OF AMERICA: Texas Counties Lose Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that Three Texas counties, including
the two that contain Dallas and Houston, were rebuffed last week
in their effort to bring a class action on behalf of all Texas
counties against Bank of America Corp. and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems Inc.  The three counties accused BofA and
MERS of using an electronic registry to avoid paying nearly $100
million in mortgage filing fees.


BASF: New Jersey Judge Dismisses Asbestos Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that BASF and its former lawyers at
Cahill Gordon & Reindel won a resounding victory when a federal
judge in New Jersey dismissed a purported class action that
accused them of suppressing and destroying evidence in connection
with thousands of asbestos suits.


BEEBE MEDICAL: Bradley Settlement Implementation Questions Linger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that as the
initial deadline approaches for members of a class of victims --
who allege they were harmed by serial child sexual-abuser Earl
Bradley -- to participate in the $123.15 million settlement
approved last month by Delaware Superior Court Judge Joseph R.
Slights III, some have questioned certain aspects of the
settlement's implementation.  However, an attorney who was
involved in drafting the settlement said every eventuality has
been considered to ensure Mr. Bradley's victims receive just
compensation.

Judge Slights approved the settlement November 19 in Doe 30's
Mother v. Bradley.  The settlement, which is said to be the first
class action settlement in a sexual-abuse case, will settle claims
against Beebe Medical Center that referred parents to Mr. Bradley,
a former Lewes pediatrician who was sentenced last year to 14 life
sentences for the rape, assault and sexual exploitation of a
child.  Under the settlement's terms, Beebe will contribute $7
million in cash plus an additional $100,000 per year over the next
five years beginning in 2013 to a fund established to assist
victims.  Six separate insurers will contribute a combined total
of approximately $112 million to the fund and the individual
doctors will each contribute $50,000 for a total of $150,000.

Some have questioned certain aspects of the settlement, including
the distinction among the five injury categories that have been
proposed for victims.  Each claimant will be placed into one of
five injury categories based upon the harm the child has suffered
and his or her need for continued treatment.  A dollar allocation
will be assigned to each category and the children within each
category will receive the same amount of compensation.  For the
many victims under the age of 18, these funds will be held in a
trust.

The first injury category is for those who present clear and
convincing evidence of sexual intercourse, as defined by Delaware
law.  The second category is for claimants who present significant
evidence, as defined by Delaware law, of sexual abuse.  The third
category is for claimants who present evidence revealing the
probability of sexual abuse, while the last two categories are for
victims who present no evidence that would allow one to reasonably
conclude how the child was abused and claimants about which the
evidence would allow one to reasonably conclude that a child was
not abused.

John G. Culhane, a professor at Widener University School of Law,
has written articles and lectured on the topic of victim
compensation.  He told Delaware Law Weekly that he thought the
settlement was the best solution for all parties, but the terms
used to define the categories were vague.

"The first and last categories are pretty clear because they rely
on statutory definitions," Mr. Culhane said in a November
interview. "But categories two and three need more definition.
For example, category two requires significant evidence of sexual
abuse.  That is a very vague term."

Mr. Culhane said last week that the lack of definition could
result in claimants objecting over the category in which they've
been placed, especially because of the monetary differences
between each category.

Jonathan Schochor, an attorney with the Baltimore firm Schochor,
Federico and Staton, who helped draft the settlement, said several
mechanisms have been adopted to ensure victims are placed into the
correct category.

First, under the terms of the accord, each claimant will be
evaluated by Annie Steinberg, a pediatrician and adolescent
psychiatrist.  She is tasked with evaluating claimants to
determine which category is appropriate for their injuries. And,
the victims have the right to appeal any decision regarding
category allocation to Steinberg or the fund administrator, former
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas B. Rutter.

"The allocation plan includes mechanisms for any victim to appeal
to Steinberg and Rutter and present any evidence to prove their
claim before the final allocation," Mr. Schochor said.  "People
are free to avail themselves to this process."

Another concern is the initial deadline to join the class occurs
today, Dec. 21, less than three weeks after Judge Slights'
November 19 approval of the settlement.  Typically in class action
litigation, claimants have between 60 to 90 days to receive notice
of the class and join in.  It is especially problematic given that
the class currently totals roughly 900 victims and could be
expanded to 7,000, the total number of patients treated by
Mr. Bradley.

Mr. Schochor said the settlement does include a 90-day period for
any claimant who was delayed in joining the class due to unusual
circumstances such as being ill or in the military to request a
hearing to determine if they have sufficient reasoning to delay
joining the class.

In addition, the ages of Mr. Bradley's victims have caused some to
be concerned that the victims would be unaware of the abuse they
suffered until later in life.  However, Mr. Schochor said a
claimant can join the fund for up to five years and a $3 million
fund has been established for victims who wish to join the
settlement at a later date.  The money used to establish the fund
was deducted from the $28 million in attorney fees awarded by
Slights to victims' counsel.

"We have reduced our requested fee from 25 percent to 22 percent
in order to establish the latency fund," he said.

Mr. Culhane said he didn't know if the five-year latency fund was
unusual, but noted because sexual abuse often takes time to
manifest itself in its victims, several state legislatures,
including Delaware, have suspended or reduced the statute of
limitations in such cases. He questioned if five years was enough
time to ensure all victims get compensated.

"I know different considerations are in play when you are talking
about the settlement," he said.  "From my perspective it seems odd
that would close the window so quickly.  Often it takes a
generation or so for adults to come forward with abuse
allegations."

Mr. Schochor also noted that victims have been aware of the
settlement for 16 months prior to its approval and the plaintiffs'
attorneys have submitted letters informing Mr. Bradley's patients
of the settlement.  However, it is not known if the letters have
reached all of Mr. Bradley's 7,000 patients.

While some laud Beebe's willingness to provide claimants with $1
million of free medical care at the hospital for any health needs
through August 2027, some have questioned its value, given that it
can only be redeemed at the hospital itself and any victim who
moved out of Delaware may have difficulty recouping the benefit.

"Some people can take advantage of this benefit, while others
cannot, based solely upon coincidence," Mr. Culhane said.  "It's
not like a voucher.  It might have been something Beebe could
throw on the table to help get this settlement.  It may have been
a sweetener but it will do some good for some people."

Mr. Schochor conceded that it might be difficult for a claimant
who has moved outside of Delaware to redeem the medical coverage,
but it can still do a lot of good for victims who remain within
the state.  He added that his partner, Phil Federico, developed
the idea.

"It's not transferable, but if you need health care it's a
wonderful thing that the Beebe Hospital is willing to provide for
these children," he said.


CHICAGO: Firefighters Lose Bid to Intervene in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that four
firefighters cannot intervene in a class action that resulted in a
$30 million judgment against Chicago for a discriminatory civil
service examination, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit ruled.

The federal appeals court slammed the would-be intervenors for
trying "to upset the judgment and improve their own fortunes at
the expense of other members of the class."

In 1995, the city administered a written examination to 26,000
firefighter applicants.  Those who scored above a 65 were rated
"qualified," but the department considered only "highly qualified"
candidates who scored above 89.

From 1996 to 2001, the city hired 11 groups of applicants,
choosing randomly from the "highly qualified" pool.

In a subsequent class action, a group of unsuccessful "qualified"
applicants alleged that the cutoff at 89 had a disparate impact on
black candidates.

Blacks made up just 11.5 percent of the "well qualified" pool,
though they accounted for about 37 percent of Chicago's population
in 2000.

Eventually the case went to the Supreme Court, which reinstated a
judgment for the firefighters in 2010.  That decision held that
the limitations period starts anew in disparate-impact litigation
whenever the employer uses the faulty test to make hiring
decisions.  It also reduced the number of class members from 132
to 111, who ultimately split $30 million damages and were offered
jobs.

The four individuals who recently tried to intervene have been
working as Chicago firefighters since 2005 after the city randomly
selected them from the "qualified" pool.

They allegedly thought that the resolution of this case would
bring them extra seniority, pension credits or back pay, but U.S.
District Judge Joan Gottschall said their motion to intervene came
five years too late.

She said each of the intervenors knew, or could have known, since
2007 that the court had defined the class to exclude hired
firefighters.

A three-judge panel affirmed on Dec. 17.

Though there was trace of a 2007 order modifying the class
definition, the four intervenors are still not entitled to relief,
according to the ruling.

"In 2007 the district court devised a remedy that gave them (and
other persons hired between 2002 and 2006) no relief," Chief Judge
Frank Easterbrook wrote for the panel.  "The intervenors say that
no one told them about this -- but then no one had to."

The law requires notification to class members only of a
settlement, not of the final outcome of a suit "fought to the
finish."

"Members of a (b)(2) class can monitor the litigation, and these
intervenors did just that when attending oral arguments in the
Supreme Court and this court," Judge Easterbrook wrote.  "They
could have asked to see the judgments entered in 2007 and 2011 but
did not."

The decision also defends limiting damages to unsuccessful
applicants.

"Applicants hired between 2002 and 2006 suffered at most a delay
in employment, while those never hired suffered a greater injury,"
Judge Easterbrook wrote.  "The intervenors have been on the
payroll since 2005, receiving salary and accruing seniority; the
other class members lack those benefits.  . . . A judge properly
could conclude that the remedy should be concentrated on the never
hired applicants rather than be shared with those who had been
enjoying salary and accruing seniority, and who might not have
been injured at all.  To repeat: given random selection, the
intervenors might have been hired in 2005 or later, or not hired
at all."

Chicago now uses a pass-fail test to screen applicants.

A copy of the Opinion in Lewis, Jr., et al. v. City of Chicago,
Illinois, No. 12-2845 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/18/chiff.pdf


CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 2,000 Catalina Outdoor Fireplaces
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Nantucket Distributing Co., Inc. of Middleboro,
Massachusetts, and seller, Christmas Tree Shops, announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,000 Catalina Outdoor Fireplaces.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The glass components of the Catalina Outdoor Fireplace can break
when a fire is lit posing a burn and laceration hazard.

Christmas Tree Shops received three reports of the glass component
of the outdoor fireplace breaking.  No injuries have been
reported.

The Catalina Outdoor Fireplace is free standing and constructed of
glass and black metal.  The 21 1/4 in. square base sits on short
legs.  Black corner pieces hold the glass sides with one hinged
side to add logs.  It has a square, vented top lid and stands
about 30" tall.  The model number CT840BL appears on the outside
of the packaging and on the instruction manual.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13072.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Christmas Tree Shops retail locations from September 2011 to
October 2012 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled outdoor
fireplace and return it to any Christmas Tree Shops store to
receive a full refund.  Christmas Tree Shops may be reached toll-
free at (888) 287-3232 any time, or online at
http://www.christmastreeshops.com/and go to the link Safety and
Recalls at the bottom of the homepage.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Still Awaits Okay of "Wolfgeher" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its
subsidiary's settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned
Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, according to the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On July 26, 2012, Commerce Bank signed the formal Settlement
Agreement and Release related to the class action lawsuit
captioned Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, which was settled in
December 2011, and which alleged unfair assessment and collection
of overdraft fees based upon a high-to-low posting order utilized
on debit card transactions.  The Bank, while admitting no
wrongdoing, agreed to the settlement in order to resolve the
litigation and avoid further expense.  In accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release (which remains
subject to final court approval), the Bank agrees to post debit
card transactions in chronological order, beginning no later than
April 2013.  As a result of this change in the posting order of
debit card transactions, the Company currently estimates that
overdraft income will be reduced on an annual basis by $6 million
to $8 million.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Adelphia Suit Settlements Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements of class action lawsuits under IN RE ADELPHIA
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
are pending appeal, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s
November 7, 2012, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia
Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment
banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and
Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the "Citigroup
Parties").  The complaint alleged that the Citigroup Parties and
numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank
Holding Company Act, the Bankruptcy Code, and common law.  It
sought an unspecified amount of damages.  In November 2003, a
similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders
Committee of Adelphia, asserting additional statutory and common
law claims.  In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with
respect to the complaints of the two committees.  Those motions
were decided by the bankruptcy court, and were granted in part and
denied in part.  The district court affirmed in part and reversed
in part the bankruptcy court's decision.  The Adelphia Recovery
Trust ("ART"), which replaced the committees as the plaintiff in
the action, filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Adelphia
Estate, consolidating the two prior complaints; motions to dismiss
the amended complaint and answers were filed.  The district court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The ART's appeal to the
Second Circuit from that partial dismissal is pending.  Before the
district court, the parties are briefing summary judgment.  On
September 22, 2010, the ART agreed in principle to settle its
claims against numerous pre-petition lenders and investment banks,
including Citigroup, in the action entitled ADELPHIA RECOVERY
TRUST v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., 05 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.).
The agreement in principle is subject to execution of a final
settlement agreement and court approval.

In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil
actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities
in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September
1997 and October 2001.  Three of the complaints also assert claims
against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A.  All of the complaints
allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the
complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the
common law.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.  In December
2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before
the same judge of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In February 2004, motions to dismiss the class and individual
actions pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York were filed.  In May and July of
2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted motions to dismiss several claims, based on
the running of applicable statute of limitations, asserted in the
alleged class and individual actions being coordinated under IN RE
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION.  With the exception of one individual action that was
dismissed with prejudice, the court granted the alleged class and
individual plaintiffs leave to re-plead certain of those claims
the court found to be time-barred.  Without admitting any
liability, CGM and numerous other financial institution defendants
settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of $250 million, and the
settlement was approved in November 2006.  Two of the additional
remaining individual complaints have been settled.  Following
settlements of the class action, which is pending appeal, and
other individual actions, two cases remain outstanding.  The
Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one has
proper standing to sue.  In September 2007, motions to dismiss in
the other case were granted in part and denied in part.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of two antitrust class action lawsuits
remain pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s
November 7, 2012, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET
AL. and RUSSELL MAYFIELD, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., are
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of auction-rate securities ("ARS") issuers and
investors, respectively, against Citigroup, CGM and various other
financial institutions.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising out of
defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially restrain trade in
the ARS market.  On January 15, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the complaints in these actions.  On January 26, 2010,
both actions were dismissed.  The actions are now pending on
appeal.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeal in Research-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of class action claims in a research-
related customer lawsuit remains pending, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-12G/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

In March 2004, an alleged research-related customer class action
alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of
allegedly misleading research analyst reports concerning numerous
issuers was filed against certain Citigroup affiliates in Illinois
state court.  On October 13, 2011, the court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice all class-action claims asserted in the
action on the ground that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 precludes those claims.  The court granted
leave for the alleged representative plaintiff to file an amended
complaint asserting only his individual claims within 21 days.  An
amended complaint was not filed within the 21-day period.  The
alleged representative plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal from
the court's October 13, 2011 order.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of class action lawsuits related to
auction-rate securities remain pending, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-12G/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup, CGM and their affiliates and
certain current and former officers, directors, and employees,
have been named as defendants in several individual and alleged
class action lawsuits related to auction-rate securities ("ARS").
These have included, among others: (i) numerous lawsuits and
arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its affiliates
seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS; (ii) a
consolidated alleged class action asserting claims for federal
securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now pending
on appeal; (iii) two alleged class actions asserting violations of
Section I of the Sherman Act, which have been dismissed and are
now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative action filed against
certain Citigroup officers and directors, which has been
dismissed.  In addition, based on an investigation, report and
recommendation from a committee of Citigroup's Board of Directors,
the Board refused a shareholder demand that was made after
dismissal of the derivative action.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals in Mortgage Crisis Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in certain proceedings asserting claims for damages and
losses arising from the 2007 global financial credit and subprime-
mortgage crisis remain pending, according to Commodity Advisors
Fund L.P.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings
asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising
from the global financial credit and subprime-mortgage crisis that
began in 2007.  Such matters include, among other types of
proceedings, claims asserted by: (i) individual investors and
purported classes of investors in Citigroup's common and preferred
stock and debt, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws; (ii) individual investors and purported classes of investors
in, and issuers of, auction rate securities alleging violations of
the federal securities and antitrust laws; (iii) counterparties to
significant transactions adversely affected by developments in the
credit and subprime markets; (iv) individual investors and
purported classes of investors in securities and other investments
underwritten, issued or marketed by Citigroup, including
collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), mortgage-backed
securities ("MBS"), auction-rate securities ("ARS"), investment
funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, that have
suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis; (v)
municipalities, related entities and individuals asserting public
nuisance claims; and (vi) individual borrowers asserting claims
related to their loans.  These matters have been filed in state
and federal courts across the country, as well as in arbitrations
before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") and
other arbitration associations.

In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, Citigroup
continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests
for information from the SEC, FINRA, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency ("FHFA", state attorneys general, the Department of Justice
and subdivisions thereof, bank regulators, and other government
agencies and authorities in connection with various formal and
informal inquiries concerning Citigroup's subprime and other
mortgage-related conduct and business activities, as well as other
business activities affected by the credit crisis.  These business
activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup's
sponsorship, packaging, issuance, marketing, servicing, and
underwriting of CDOs and residential mortgage-backed securities
("RMBS") and its origination, sale or other transfer, servicing,
and foreclosure of residential mortgages.

On October 19, 2011, in connection with its industry wide
investigation concerning CDO-related business activities, the SEC
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York regarding Citigroup's structuring
and sale of the Class V Funding III CDO transaction ("Class V"),
which alleged that CGM negligently misrepresented key deal terms
of the Class V CDO.  On the same day, the SEC and Citigroup
announced a settlement of the SEC's claims, subject to judicial
approval, and the SEC filed a proposed final judgment pursuant to
which Citigroup's U.S. broker-dealer CGM agreed to disgorge $160
million, and pay $30 million in prejudgment interest and a $95
million penalty.  On November 28, 2011, the district court issued
an order refusing to approve the proposed settlement and ordering
trial to begin on July 16, 2012.  On December 15, and 19, 2011,
respectively, the SEC and CGM filed notices of appeal from the
district court's November 28 order.  On December 27, 2011, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted an
emergency stay of further proceedings in the district court,
pending the Second Circuit's ruling on the SEC's motion to stay
the district court proceedings during the pendency of the appeals.
On March 15, 2012, the Second Circuit granted a stay of the
district court proceedings pending resolution of the appeals.

Federal and state regulators, including the SEC, also have served
subpoenas or otherwise requested information related to
Citigroup's issuing, sponsoring, or underwriting of MBS.  These
inquiries include a subpoena from the Civil Division of the
Department of Justice that Citigroup received on January 27, 2012.


CREDIT SUISSE: Lawyer Faces Charges Over Alleged Scam
-----------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that California State Bar officials have
filed disciplinary charges against Wade Robertson, alleging he
bilked an elderly man out of $3.5 million by promising returns
from a securities class action lawsuit against Credit Suisse --
despite the fact Mr. Robertson was not counsel in the matter.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: "Bartlett" Suit Settled/Dismissed in Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled George Bartlett, et al., v.
Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al., was settled and dismissed in
September 2012, according to Crestwood Midstream Partners LP's
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In December 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, George
Bartlett, et al., v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al. was filed
in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Arkansas against Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, Kinder Morgan Treating LP and Crestwood Arkansas
Pipeline, LLC.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants'
operations polluted the atomosphere, groundwater, and soil with
allegedly harmful gases, chemicals, and compounds and the
facilities created excessive noise levels constituting trespass,
nuisance and annoyance.

On September 17, 2012, this case was settled and dismissed.  The
Company says the settlement did not have a material impact on its
results of operations or financial condition.

Crestwood Midstream Partners LP -- http://www.crestwoodlp.com--
engages in gathering, compressing, treating, processing, and
transporting natural gas primarily on the Barnett Shale formation
of the Fort Worth Basin in north Texas.  The Company conducts its
operations through its Cowtown System, Lake Arlington Dry System,
and Alliance Midstream Assets, as well as the Fayetteville Shale
and the Granite Wash plays.  The Company was formerly known as
Quicksilver Gas Services LP and changed its name to Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP in October 2010.  It was founded in 2004 and
is based in Houston, Texas.  Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is a
subsidiary of Crestwood Gas Services Holdings LLC.


DIRECTV: Appeal in Early Cancellation Fees Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV's appeal from the denial of its arbitration motion in the
class action lawsuit challenging early cancellation fees it
charges customers remains pending, according to the Company's
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending, some in California state court purporting to
represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts purporting
to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek both monetary
and injunctive relief.  While the theories of liability vary, the
lawsuits generally challenge these fees under state consumer
protection laws as both unfair and inadequately disclosed to
customers.  The Company's motions to compel arbitration have been
granted in all of the federal cases, except as to claims seeking
injunctive relief under California statutes.  The denial of the
Company's motion as to those claims is currently on appeal.  The
Company believes that its early cancellation fees are adequately
disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the costs the
Company incurs when customers cancel service before fulfilling
their programming commitments.


DIRECTV: Received Final Judgment in Liberty Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV received final judgment in August 2012 in the class action
lawsuit arising from the merger of Liberty Media Corporation with
its subsidiary, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

A purported class action complaint was filed on February 9, 2010,
and amended on April 23, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court against
certain past and present directors of Liberty Media Corporation
alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties as Liberty board members in connection with the
business terms and approval process by Liberty stockholders of the
merger of Liberty Entertainment, Inc. with a subsidiary of DIRECTV
as part of the Liberty Transaction.  The defendants requested
indemnification and DIRECTV elected to take control of the
defense.  After extensive discovery, the parties conducted
mediation that resulted in a settlement providing for payment to
plaintiffs of $10 million, substantially all of which was paid by
insurance.  The terms were finalized by a settlement agreement
between the parties on May 16, 2012, and an Order and Final
Judgment by the court on August 6, 2012.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of "CreditBuilder"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that "Thousands
of small businesses" were "deceived, misled and cheated" by Dun &
Bradstreet in a "pay to play" scam that sells useless credit
products in exchange for a favorable credit rating, a construction
company claims in a federal class action.

O&R Construction claims Dun & Bradstreet used "pure deception" to
sell small business the "CreditBuilder" line of products, by
falsely claiming there was a problem with the businesses' credit
reports.

"Defendants' aggressive marketing campaign features high-pressure
sales tactics, including misleading form letters, emails and sales
call scripts, which falsely claim that there are problems on a
small business's credit report with Dun & Bradstreet, which the
CreditBuilder products can remedy," the complaint states.  "The
defendants sell small businesses expensive products that purport
to improve their credit ratings and correct problems on their
reports: CreditBuilder for $799/year, CreditBuilder Plus for
$1,099/year and CreditBuilder Premium for $1,599/year
(collectively, the 'CreditBuilder products')."

Dun & Bradstreet maintains an extensive database of information
about the creditworthiness of small business, and licenses the
information to use in making credit decisions.  It has more than
205 million business records on companies around the world,
according to its Feb. 29, 2012 Form 10-K filed with the Securities
& Exchange Commission.

Businesses must have a Dun & Bradstreet-assigned Data Universal
Number System (DUNS) number to apply for a government contract,
according to the complaint.

"Defendants routinely stress the importance of a DUNS number and
mislead customers into believing that they can obtain a DUNS
number by purchasing a CreditBuilder product.  In truth, DUNS
numbers are automatically generated by D&B prior to any
solicitation of the customer," the complaint states.

Dun & Bradstreet trains its sales force on how to "hard-sell"
credit-monitoring products by using false information, the class
claims.

"After bringing the weight of the Dun & Bradstreet name to bear
upon target customers, the defendants employ other unlawful and
deceptive sales tactics to instill fear in the minds of target
customers.  As set forth below, defendants issue uniform
solicitations which falsely claim that: (a) 'inquiries' have been
made about the target customer's credit; (b) the target customer
has an 'incomplete' credit profile with D&B; and/or (c) the target
customer has a Supplier Evaluation Risk ('SER') rating of 'High
Risk of Financial Stress.'  Each of these claims causes a small
business owner reasonable and understandable concern, especially
coming from Dun & Bradstreet.  In the end, defendants strong-arm
thousands of small businesses into purchasing CreditBuilder
products each year by falsely claiming that the products will
solve the 'problem' or dramatically improve the customer's credit
profile," according to the complaint.

"Sales agents are given very little information about the small
businesses listed in their sales queues.  Despite this lack of
meaningful information about the credit profile or needs of
individual target customers, defendants train their sales agents
to falsely tell every target customer that there have been
multiple 'inquiries' into the small business's credit profile.  So
universal and indiscriminate is this tactic that sales agents
frequently inform brand new businesses that there have been
inquiries, when the business is too young to have had any, or that
a defunct business has had inquiries, when it has been non-
operational long enough not to have had any."

O&R Construction claims it was forced to buy Creditbuilder
products in order to dispute false information on its credit
reports.

"Indeed, defendants' customer service representatives, sales
agents and websites throw up numerous road blocks to those
business owners who attempt to dispute inaccurate 'delinquencies'
without purchasing a CreditBuilder product.  Defendants make it
virtually impossible for a business owner to dispute negative
credit references even though business owners should be allowed to
dispute negative references for free," the complaint states.
"DBCC [lead defendant Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.] also
applies a nonsense category called DUNS Support Status ('DS
Status') to any business who has not purchased a CreditBuilder
product, implying that the business is in credit jeopardy or there
is something wrong with its DUNS number.  Defendants train their
sales agents to tell target customers that a business in 'DS
Status' will be perceived by the business community as either a
start-up with no financial record or a struggling company that is
on the verge of failure.  Of course, sales agents offer
'verification' to remove this false and misleading appellation
through the CreditBuilder products for the cost of one of the
products, as well as a 'one time activation fee of $149 just to
set up the account.'"

According to the 31-page complaint: "Businesses must 'pay to play'
to maintain a favorable credit rating and score," and "Despite
following the CreditBuilder product protocols, customers find that
the product has failed to improve their business credit score or
report, or otherwise perform as defendants promised."

And Dun & Bradstreet plays the game over and over again, the class
claims: "CreditBuilder products must be renewed on an annual
basis.  When existing customers are satisfied with a strong credit
score and report, they may choose not to renew their CreditBuilder
product subscription.  After expiration, these customers find that
their D&B credit rating has fallen dramatically and they have been
classified by DBCC as in financial risk and possibly failure.
This occurs because, when a customer stops paying for
CreditBuilder services, defendants intentionally lower the
customer's D&B score and rating."

O&R Construction, owned Orin and Robyn Kolaitis, claims it was
duped into buying the worthless credit products based on Dun &
Bradstreet's false information: "One of the defendants' sales
agents told Mrs. Kolaitis over the phone that O&R's credit rating
was very low, that the company was rated a 'severe risk' and that
there were some negative payment experiences on its credit report.
This is a uniform sales misrepresentation used by defendants to
induce plaintiff to purchase the CreditBuilder products. These
'negative payment experiences' included (i) a cash account
purportedly opened in 2011 in the amount of $50 and (ii) a 'slow
pay' account.  These negative payment experiences were erroneous.

"When Mrs. Kolaitis explained that the claims were untrue, the
sales agent told her that she could (a) contest the erroneous
items on her report and (b) submit trade references to improve her
score -- if she bought the CreditBuilder product."

But O&R claims that even after it bought the product, Dun &
Bradstreet lowered its credit rating because it rejected the
references she submitted.

"The reason for this rejection was that: Dun & Bradstreet
independently collects trade references from about 8,000 creditors
that regularly report to it; these references are called 'trade
tape.'  Defendants have a secret, internal rule that trade
references submitted through CreditBuilder will be rejected if
they already appear on trade tape.  This restriction is not
disclosed to customers when purchasing CreditBuilder products,"
the complaint states.

O&R claims Dun & Bradstreet violated antitrust laws by conspiring
to make its CreditBuilder products the only products available on
the market that can address D&B's small business credit reports,
and by monopolizing DUNS number-related credit monitoring. They
want Dun & Bradstreet enjoined from wrongful marketing and sales
of credit-monitoring products.

They also want disgorgement and actual and punitive damages for
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

Their lead counsel is Brad Moore -- brad@stritmatter.com -- with
Stritmatter Kessler Whelan & Coluccio.


DYNEGY INC: Appeal in "Silsby" Class Action Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling with respect to a
securities class action lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl
C. Icahn, et al. remains pending, according to Dynegy Inc.'s
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate
reorganization of Dynegy Holdings, LLC, Dynegy Northeast segment,
Hudson Power, L.L.C., Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. and Dynegy
Roseton, L.L.C. (collectively, the "DH Debtor Entities") and their
non-debtor affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition
Restructuring"), and specifically the DMG Transfer (On Sept. 1,
2011, DH sold 100 percent of the outstanding membership interests
of Dynegy Coal Holdco to Dynegy), a putative class action
stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et
al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the "Securities Litigation"), was filed
in the United States District Court of the Southern District of
New York.  The lawsuit challenged certain disclosures made in
connection with the DMG Transfer.  The Company believes the
plaintiff's complaint lacks merit and the Company will oppose the
Securities Litigation vigorously.  As a result of the filing of
the voluntary petition for bankruptcy by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit
was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and as a result of the
confirmation of the Plan, the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the
Securities Litigation are permanently enjoined.

On August 24, 2012, the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan
asserting, among other things, that Lead Plaintiff should be
permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions
(the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative
class members.  The Company opposed that relief.  On October 1,
2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff did not have
standing to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-
out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-
interest.  Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed
against the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the
putative class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor
Releases.  The Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October
10, 2012.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: March 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 17 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

            Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-08633-JGK
                     (Consolidated)
                      CLASS ACTION
                     SUMMARY NOTICE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

vs.

ENERGYSOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OR DEPOSITORY
SHARES OF ENERGYSOLUTIONS, INC. ("ES" OR THE "COMPANY") IN OR
TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S OFFERING OF SECURITIES ON OR ABOUT
NOVEMBER 14, 2007 OR JULY 24, 2008 (THE "OFFERINGS") OR PURCHASED
ES COMMON STOCK OR DEPOSITORY SHARES BETWEEN NOVEMBER 14, 2007 AND
OCTOBER 14, 2008, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a
hearing will be held on March 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., before the
Honorable John G. Koeltl, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 12B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the Action for the sum of Twenty-Six Million Dollars
($26,000,000) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants as set forth
in the Revised Settlement Agreement dated as of November 19, 2012;
(3) whether the Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Action, together with interest thereon, and payment to
Lead Plaintiffs for their expenses incurred representing the
Class.

If you acquired or purchased ES common stock or depository shares
during the period November 14, 2007 through October 14, 2008,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Action and the
settlement thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to EnergySolutions Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990,
or by downloading this information at http://www.gilardi.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than March 14, 2013, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, to the above address, postmarked by February 7, 2013.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than February 7, 2013, and
received by the following no later than February 7, 2013:

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs:

          Helen J. Hodges, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747

Attorneys for Defendants EnergySolutions, ENV, and the Individual
Defendants:

          Bruce D. Angiolillo, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
          Evan I. Cohen, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954

Counsel for Defendants Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.), and
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated):

          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Daniel C. Lewis, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com
                  daniel.lewis@shearman.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: December 3, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


FIDELITY: Sued for Wrongfully Denying Hurricane-Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Nathan, writing for The Jersey Journal, reports that the
definition of a basement is the focal point of a class action
lawsuit that deals with insurance claims filed for damages caused
by Hurricane Irene in 2011 and superstorm Sandy in late October.

The lawsuit is one of the first to include both Sandy and Irene
claims and was filed on Dec. 13 in the Federal District Court of
New Jersey by Union City-based attorney Jeffrey Bronster.

Nine local and national insurance companies, including Fidelity,
Travelers and State Farm are named and accused of wrongfully
denying claims related to Irene and Sandy and misinterpreting the
term "basement."

"This is dealing with the issue of whether or not ground-floor
units have been properly classified as a basement," said
Mr. Bronster.

The insurance companies named in the suit participate in the
federal Write Your Own program, which allows insurance companies
to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to write the
Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) in their own names.

Mr. Bronster said the lawsuit will represent everyone in New
Jersey insured by the companies named in the lawsuit, and the suit
contains sub-classes specifically focused on Jersey City and
Hoboken property and business owners.

The only plaintiff currently listed by name is a Jersey City man,
Patrick Donnelly, who owns a house on Grove Street.  According to
the complaint, Mr. Donnelly had flood insurance through WYO with
New Jersey Re-Insurance Company and had a claim denied after
Hurricane Irene because his ground floor was identified as a
basement.

"(Donnelly's first floor) is not elevated, but it is not a
basement either," said Mr. Bronster.  "It gets very technical."

Requests for comment from New Jersey Re-Insurance Company were not
returned.

The SFIP defines a basement as "any area of the building,
including any sunken room or sunken portion of a room, having its
floor below ground level (subgrade) on all sides."  The SFIP
offers limited coverage for damages in basements, the complaint
said.

Mr. Bronster has included claims for Sandy in the lawsuit because
he hopes to avoid improper denials similar to those from Irene.
Mr. Bronston said that he has held community meetings and has
identified other people who will join the class action.

"Unfortunately, the homeowners aren't even aware that they may
have a cause of action," said Mr. Bronster.  "Because you get
adjusters that come out from the insurance companies and tell them
it's not covered because it's a basement.  They have a limited
understanding at best at what a basement is or isn't under their
policy."

Mr. Donnelly and the other plaintiffs are seeking compensatory
damages and pre-judgment interest.


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hilton Worldwide stiffed
hourly employees for overtime, a class action claims in Orange
County Court.


HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Seeks Recusal of Judge Carol Higbee in MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that in the years-long, multicounty
litigation in New Jersey over Hoffmann-La Roche's Accutane acne
medication, the drug maker is asking for the recusal of Atlantic
County Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, charging that the
judge's words and actions "inexorably lead to the conclusion that
the Court is no longer impartial and that its appearance of
impartiality is irretrievably lost."


HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Stability-Assist System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the 2005 Honda Pilot has a
defective stability-assist system that causes the brakes to slam
on without warning, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior
Court.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Deceptive Suncreen Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a putative class action filed
in New Jersey alleges Neutrogena, a subsidiary of Johnson &
Johnson, misled consumers by labeling sunscreen products as
"sunblock," "waterproof" and "sweatproof" despite FDA regulations
banning those terms.  The suit seeks certification of a nationwide
class of persons who bought Neutrogena sun protection products
within four years of the complaint's filing.


LG CHEM: Fixes Prices of Lithium Ion Batteries, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Powers, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LG Chem America, Inc., LG Chem, Ltd., Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Sanyo
Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Sony
Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics,
Inc., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Hitachi,
Ltd., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. and Maxell Corporation of America, Case
No. 3:12-cv-06118 (N.D. Calif., December 3, 2012) is brought on
behalf Classes of similarly situated persons, against the world's
largest manufacturers of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries for
conspiring to fix the prices of those batteries.

The Defendants and other co-conspirators agreed to fix prices of
Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries, Mr. Powers asserts.  He
contends that as a direct result of the anticompetitive and
unlawful conduct of the Defendants, he and the Classes paid
artificially inflated prices for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries during the Class Period and have, thereby, suffered
antitrust injury to their business or property.

Mr. Powers is a resident of San Francisco, California.  During the
Class Period, he purchased several personal electronic products
containing Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries manufactured by a
Defendant.

LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.  LG
Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea.  LG Chem
is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.

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

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.

Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.  Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Thomas R. Merrick, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com
                  tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com
                  xanb@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Roderick P. Bushnell, Esq.
          Alan M. Caplan, Esq.
          BUSHNELL & CAPLAN LLP
          900 Kearny Street, Suite 299
          San Francisco, CA 94133-5124
          Telephone: (415) 217-3800
          Facsimile: (415) 217-3820
          E-mail: rod@bcfmlaw.com
                  acapbcf@aol.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls 457,000 Top-Loading Washing Machines
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LG Electronics Inc., of South Korea, announced a voluntary recall
of about 457,000 Top-Loading Washing Machines.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

An unbalanced load can cause the washing machine to shake
excessively and the drum to come loose during use, posing a risk
of injury to consumers and property damage to the surrounding
area.

LG has received at least 343 reports of washing machines vibrating
excessively, of which at least 187 involved minor property damage.
One minor injury has been reported.

The recall involves three LG and three Kenmore Elite Brand top-
loading washing machine models manufactured between February 2010
and November 2011.  The units come in beige, white and graphite
steel colors.  Recalled washing machines have the following model
and serial number ranges:

   Brand           Model       Serial Number Range
   -----           -----       -------------------
   LG              WT5001CW    002KW******* Thru 111KW*******
                   WT5101HV    002KW******* Thru 111KW*******
                   WT5101HW    002KW******* Thru 111KW*******
   Kenmore Elite   29002       005KW******* Thru 111KW*******
                   29272       005KW******* Thru 111KW*******
                   29278       005KW******* Thru 111KW*******

The model and serial number can be found on a label fixed on the
rating plate on the top back of the washing machine.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13073.html

The recalled products were manufactured in South Korea.  The LG
models were sold at Best Buy, Home Depot, Kmart, Sears and local
retailers nationwide.  Kenmore Elite models were sold at Kmart and
Sears.  All were sold from April 2010 to December 2012 for between
$899 and $1,099.

Consumers should immediately contact LG or Sears for a free in-
home repair of the machine.  Consumers will also receive
supplemental information to be inserted into their owner's manual
and a new caution label to be placed on the washing machine.
Consumers who have observed their recalled washing machine shaking
excessively should immediately stop using it.  Consumers should be
aware that loading their machines with water-proof or water-
resistant items, such as mattress pads, mattress covers and
similar items, increases the chances of loads being unbalanced.
LG may be reached toll-free at (855) 400-4639, from 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or 8:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. Central Time Saturday, or online at http://www.lg.com/us/and
click on Public Notices.  For Kenmore or LG washers purchased at
Sears or Kmart, call toll-free at (888) 812-2935, from 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. Central Time Saturday, or online at
http://www.sears.com/and click on Customer Service Home then
Product Recalls in the Product Information section.


MIDWEST GENERATION: Two Negligence Suits Still Pending in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC continues to defend two putative class
action complaints over charges of nuisance and negligence,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation in Illinois state court by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence,
trespass, and strict liability.  The plaintiffs seek to have their
suits certified as a class action and request injunctive relief,
as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The complaints are
similar to two complaints previously filed in the Northern
District of Illinois, which were dismissed in October 2011 for
lack of federal jurisdiction.  Midwest Generation's motions to
dismiss the cases were denied in August 2012, following which the
plaintiffs filed amended complaints alleging substantially similar
claims and requesting similar relief.

Midwest Generation LLC was formed on July 12, 1999, as a Delaware
limited liability company with Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co.
as the sole owner.  Edison Mission Midwest Holdings is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Midwest Generation EME, LLC, which is in turn
a wholly owned subsidiary of EME.  EME is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Edison International.  Midwest Generation was formed
for the purpose of owning or leasing, making improvements to, and
operating and selling the capacity and energy of, the power
generation assets it purchased from Commonwealth Edison, which are
referred to as the Midwest Generation plants.  Midwest Generation
acquired the Midwest Generation plants on December 15, 1999.


MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Narrows Claims in Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Morgan
Stanley need not face most state-law claims related to how it paid
a class of commission-based financial advisors, a federal judge
ruled.

The multidistrict litigation is led by former Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney financial advisers Jimmy Kuhn, Robert Gibson, Nick
Pontilena, Gregg Vanasse, Howard Rosenblatt and Denise Otten.
Each filed a separate complaint against the firm last year in
Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, alleging
violations of each state's laws and the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

They said Morgan Stanley applied wage deductions to their
paychecks without permission for items such as overhead, and that
it denied overtime or reimbursement for expenses such as messenger
services, overnight mail delivery and client lunches.

After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the cases to New Jersey federal court for pretrial purposes, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class and collective-action
complaint.

They seek to represent current and former financial advisors and
financial advisor trainees.

Morgan Stanley moved to dismiss the Rhode Island overtime claim,
the New Jersey failure to maintain records claim, and all four
state wage deduction claims.

U.S. District Judge William Martini agreed on Dec. 14, leaving the
class with the as-yet unopposed overtime claims under federal law
and the laws of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

In nixing the claim advisors' Rhode Island overtime claim, the
court noted that Rhode Island has only recently explicitly adopted
a private right of action for overtime claims under the Minimum
Wage Act.

"Since the cases encompassed in this MDL were filed in 2011,
Morgan Stanley maintains that the new law is not retroactive;
plaintiffs appear to agree," Judge Martini wrote, abbreviating
multidistrict litigation.  "Because pre-existing law did not
recognize a private right of action, the court will dismiss count
seven with prejudice."

The state-law claims of impermissible wage deductions all failed.

For example, "under Connecticut law, deductions are not
'impermissible' in the abstract," Judge Martini wrote.  "Instead,
deductions are impermissible relative to a given agreement.  The
complaint does not so much as quote a single provision of
plaintiffs' contract.  Accordingly, any claim that Morgan Stanley
'impermissibly' deducted money from plaintiffs' wages is entirely
conclusory.  The court will dismiss this count without prejudice."

Meanwhile the court deemed the failure-to-maintain-records claim
duplicative.

"Even if additional damages were available, plaintiffs have waived
them.  Ultimately, if plaintiffs are to recover compensatory
damages under count six, they will have to demonstrate that Morgan
Stanley shorted them on compensation," Judge Martini wrote.  "But
demonstrating that Morgan Stanley shorted them on compensation is
exactly what plaintiffs attempt to do with their other claims."

Morgan Stanley also moved to strike the class and collective
allegations, but Judge Martini said it would be premature to
strike overtime class allegations at this time.

He did, however, strike trainees from the putative impermissible
deductions classes after noting that this aspect was not properly
alleged in the complaint.

The plaintiffs have 30 days to file a second amended complaint
consistent with Judge Martini's opinion.

A copy of the Opinion in In Re Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 2280 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/18/Morgan%20Stanley.pdf


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Kerr & Wagstaffe Comments on Red Light Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kerr & Wagstaffe on Dec. 17 commented that although nearly 550
communities in the United States are noted to have red light
traffic cameras installed to reinforce driver safety, many feel
that these devices are unlawful in their operation.  A recent
article from CBS News highlights a recent discovery by AAA New
York engineers that suggests many New York City red light cameras
do not allow enough time for drivers to pass through before being
noted as violators.  As a result, those who have received tickets
for running red lights are threatening the city with a class-
action lawsuit.  Kerr & Wagstaffe, a California-based law firm
specializing in class-action cases, responds to the specific
nature of these legal claims.

The article states, "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."  In response to this finding, Robert Sinclair, AAA motor
club New York spokesperson, notes that although AAA is in support
of the safety measures provided by these red light cameras, they
are rendered inefficient if simply used as a "revenue enhancement
tool."

According to Kerr & Wagstaffe, public action against red light
camera programs deliver varied results to the community.  In a
recent press statement, Kerr & Wagstaffe notes, "Class action
lawsuits seeing to prohibit the use of red light cameras have met
with mixed success in the courts."  Although the state of New
Jersey has suspended its red light camera program as a response to
similar defective findings, the New York City Department of
Transportation claims, "There has been no substantiation that any
red light cameras in this report were improperly timed or led to
any violation being issued incorrectly."

Although the claims have yet to be recognized, the article notes
that "as many as six million ticketed New York drivers" affected
by these cameras may benefit from a class-action lawsuit against
the city.  However, Kerr & Wagstaffe maintains in its press
statement, "Ultimately, it comes down to whether the accused
jurisdiction has used the appropriate procedural safeguards to
provide for due process rights of the alleged red light runners."


NORCO BICYCLES: Recalls 90 Havoc Bicycles Due to Risk of Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Norco Bicycles, a division of LTP Sports Group Inc., of Port
Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada, announced a voluntary recall
of about 90 2011 Havoc Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The bicycle frame can crack at the joint where the top tube meets
the down tube.  A cracked tube can separate and cause the rider to
lose control, posing a risk of injury or death.

The firm has received three reports of cracked frames.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 2011 Havoc 24-inch and 26-inch bicycles.  The
24-inch bicycles were sold in semi-matte grey and the 26-inch in
semi-matte red.  On some of the bicycles, "Norco" is printed on
the firm's crest that is affixed to the head tube.  Bicycle frames
included in this recall have serial numbers that begin with K10DQ,
K10FQ, K10IQ, K10KQ P10K, P10F or P11B.  The serial number is
stamped on the underside of the bottom bracket, below the word
"Havoc."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13074.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized Norco dealers nationwide from November 2010 to
September 2011 for about $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bike and
return it in an authorized Norco dealer for a replacement.  Norco
Bicycles may be reached at (800) 227-5579, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday.  Consumers can also visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.norco.com/and click on "Recall"
for more information.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Annuity Class Action Remains in Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Forward, writing for State Bar of Wisconsin, reports that the
class of Wisconsin plaintiffs fighting to keep its case against
Northwestern Mutual out of federal court recently lost, as the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that
annuity contract issues must remain in federal court for
resolution.

Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company sold a specific annuity
product to approximately 36,000 people across the country.  About
3,000 live in Wisconsin.  In 1985, the insurance company changed
the method for calculating the annual annuity dividend.

In 2001, annuity policyholders filed a class action lawsuit in
Wisconsin state court seeking to represent annuitants nationwide.
They alleged the changes violated annuity contract terms.

After the court refused to certify the nationwide class,
plaintiffs sought to proceed as a class limited to annuitants who
live in Wisconsin.  They wanted a declaratory judgment that
Northwestern Mutual's 1985 change to annuity dividend calculations
was invalid.

The Wisconsin circuit court judge certified the class and in a
"sweeping decision," declared that Northwestern Mutual violated
the annuity contracts and breached fiduciary duties.

The class then sought damages for annuitants in every state
through an amended complaint, based on the declaratory judgment
announced in Wisconsin.

Northwestern Mutual asked for removal to federal court under the
federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  But the plaintiffs
asked for remand to state court, arguing that CAFA specifically
excludes class action claims involving "internal affairs or
governance of a corporation."

The internal-affairs doctrine recognizes that only one state
should have the authority to regulate a corporation's internal
affairs, and Northwestern Mutual is based in Wisconsin.

The class plaintiffs said Northwestern Mutual is a mutual insurer,
and the policyholders have ownership interests in the governance
and profits of mutual insurers.

Northwestern Mutual argued that suits involving annuity contracts
don't involve a corporation's "internal affairs" and choice-of-law
provisions in the annuity contracts prevent application of
Wisconsin corporate law to policyholders in other states.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
remanded the case to state court, concluding that disputes of
policies issued by mutual insurers relate to "internal affairs."

However, a three-judge panel for the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals recently vacated the district court decision in LaPlant v.
Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co.

"LaPlant and the class have not cited any decision, by any state
court, applying the internal-affairs doctrine to claims by
annuitants based on promises made in their policies, and we
conclude that Section 1453(d)(2) does not apply," wrote Judge
Frank Easterbrook.

"This is a contract case, not a corporate governance case," Judge
Easterbrook wrote.  "Every state enforces promises, but states
differ in how they calculate damages and when (if ever) punitive
damages are available for breach of contract."


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: No Order on Plea to Dismiss "Primo" Suit Yet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is awaiting a court
decision on its bid to dismiss the class action captioned Primo v.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:11-CV-
06599, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The "Primo" action is a putative class action lawsuit filed on
December 21, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.  On April 11, 2012, an amended complaint
was filed in the Primo action, which added another plaintiff, Evan
Powell.  As amended, the complaint alleges violations of several
provisions of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions in our August 16, 2010 registration
statement (effective, as amended, on October 26, 2010), and by the
Company and/or its employees during the class period.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative class.  On April 6, 2012, Mr. Primo was appointed lead
plaintiff in the action. Defendants in the Primo action have filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

A hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss was held on October 11,
2012.  A decision on the motion to dismiss has not yet been
issued.

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., is a biotechnology
company founded in 2004 that develops and manufactures systems for
gene sequencing and some novel real time biological observation.
They describe their platform as single molecule real time
sequencing (SMRT), based on the properties of zero-mode
waveguides.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Court Allows Shareholders to Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court has given plaintiffs in a shareholder
litigation against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. leave
to amend their lawsuit, according to the Company's November 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.  These
actions were brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
(IPO) of common stock in October 2010.  The claims were initiated
between October 2011 and April 2012 and have since been
consolidated as In re Pacific Biosciences of California Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. CIV509210 (the State Court
Action).  The plaintiffs in the State Court Action seek, among
other things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys'
fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.  Defendants in the
State Court Action filed a motion to stay that lawsuit in
deference to an action commenced by a certain "Primo" pending in
federal district court.  On May 25, 2012, the Superior Court
denied Defendants' motion to stay.  Defendants in the State Court
Action also filed a demurrer to certain of plaintiffs' claims,
which was sustained in part and overruled in part on October 16,
2012.  The Court also granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., is a biotechnology
company founded in 2004 that develops and manufactures systems for
gene sequencing and some novel real time biological observation.
They describe their platform as single molecule real time
sequencing (SMRT), based on the properties of zero-mode
waveguides.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 82 Pro-RMK 600 and 800 Snowmobiles
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 82 Snowmobiles were voluntarily recalled by Polaris
Industries Inc., of Medina, Minnesota, in cooperation with the
CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bolt attaching the front, lower left shock can fail and cause
the operator to lose control of the vehicle.  This poses a serious
hazard of injury or death.

No incidents or reports have been received.

The recall involves 2013 Polaris Pro-RMK 600 and 800 snowmobiles.
The snowmobiles come in red, white and black.  "Pro-RMK" is on the
lower right and left sides of the hood.  The engine size and the
letters "ES" or the words "Limited Edition" are on the upper right
and left sides of the hood.  The numbers "155" or "163" are on the
rear of the tunnel.  "Polaris" appears on the sides of the seat.
The model number and serial number can be found on the right hand
side of the tunnel below the seat.  This recall includes the
models listed below:

       Model Name           Model Number
       ----------           ------------
       600 PRO RMK 155        S13CG6GSA
       800 PRO RMK 163        S13CH8GSA
       800 PRO RMK 163 ES     S13CH8GSL

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13711.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Polaris Snowmobile dealers nationwide from
August 2012 through October 2012 for between $10,800 and $12,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the vehicles and contact
any Polaris snowmobile dealer to schedule a free repair.  Polaris
has notified registered consumers directly about this recall.
Polaris may be reached toll-free at (888) 704-5290, from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.polaris.com/,then select "Company" on the top menu,
then select News & Events for more information.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Securities Suit Still in Prelim. Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit initiated in California is still
in its preliminary stages, according to Prosper Marketplace,
Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all
loan note purchasers on the platform from January 1, 2006, through
October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company offered
and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of
the California and federal securities laws.  The lawsuit seeks
class certification, damages and the right of rescission against
the Company and the other named defendants, as well as treble
damages against the Company and the award of attorneys' fees,
experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs.
On February 29, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the
class action lawsuit.  The Company cannot, however, presently
determine or estimate the final outcome of the lawsuit, and there
can be no assurance that it will be finally resolved in the
Company's favor.  If the class action lawsuit is not resolved in
the Company's favor, the Company might be obliged to pay damages,
and might be subject to such equitable relief as a court may
determine.  Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an accrued
loss contingency in connection with its sale of notes through the
platform prior to November 2008.  Accounting for loss
contingencies involves the existence of a condition, situation or
set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss
that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future event(s)
occur or fail to occur.  An estimated loss in connection with a
loss contingency shall be recorded by a charge to current
operations if both of the following conditions are met: first, the
amount can be reasonably estimated; and second, the information
available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates
that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date
of the financial statements.

As of September 30, 2012, the class action lawsuit is in its
preliminary stages and its probable outcome cannot presently be
determined, nor can the amount of damages or other costs that
might be borne by Prosper be estimated.

                        Greenwich Action

The Company's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company ("Greenwich"), denied
coverage.  On August 21, 2009, the Company filed a lawsuit against
Greenwich in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The lawsuit sought a declaration that the
Company was entitled to coverage under its policy with Greenwich
for losses arising out of the class action lawsuit as well as
damages and the award of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich had a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay the Company's
past and future defense costs in the class action lawsuit up to
$2.0 million.

On July 1, 2011, the Company and Greenwich entered into a
Stipulated Order of Judgment pursuant to which the Company agreed
to dismiss its remaining claims against Greenwich.

On August 12, 2011, Greenwich filed a notice of appeal of the
court's decision regarding Greenwich's duty to defend up to $2.0
million.  On July 16, 2012, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court's decision.

As of September 30, 2012, Greenwich had made payments to the
Company in the amount of $2.0 million to reimburse the Company for
the defense costs it had incurred in the class action lawsuit.  On
October 2, 2012, subsequent to the balance sheet date of September
30, 2012, Greenwich made an additional payment of $142,585 to the
Company for pre-judgment interest.  As a result, Greenwich has now
satisfied its obligations with respect to the Company's defense
costs for the Hellum lawsuit.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. operates as a peer-to-peer lending
marketplace in the United States.  It connects prospective
borrowers with people who have money and a willingness to lend
through an online community.  The Company handles funding and
servicing of the loan on behalf of the matched borrowers and
investors.  It is based in San Francisco, California.


SALLIE MAE: Students File Class Action Over Abetted Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that Sallie
Mae aided and abetted a fraudulent culinary school by issuing
student loans at "credit card rates," four students claim in a
federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Andrew Bradshaw sued SLM Corp. and Sallie Mae,
claiming they aided and abetted fraud at the California Culinary
Academy, which is not named as a defendant.

SLM and its subsidiaries own, manage and service more than 11
million student loans totaling more than $234 billion, according
to the 60-page complaint.

California Culinary Academy has been sued repeatedly.  Twenty-one
of its recruiters sued the school in September 2011, claiming the
companies that run the for-profit college "run the school like a
used-car lot, preying on vulnerable students . . . saddling them
with loans they cannot pay back," Courthouse News reported at the
time.

In a June 2008 class action, the two named plaintiffs claimed they
each ran up $50,000 in debts for an education worth no more than
$2,000.  Both those complaints were in Los Angeles Superior Court.

According to the new complaint: "Sallie Mae misled plaintiffs and
committed other unlawful conduct of its own, causing plaintiffs to
take out enormous loans with credit-card interest rates, when
Sallie Mae knew that these students had a relatively small
likelihood of being able to repay the loans in full.  Plaintiffs
now seek to get their lives back on track by having Sallie Mae
bear its fair share of the losses.

"Plaintiffs had no idea that attending CCA was an economically
irrational act.  Plaintiffs did not know that a CCA education has
little or no value.  Nor did they understand that at no relevant
time has there been a job market for CCA graduates that pays
sufficient wages to enable graduates to pay down the substantial
debt they must incur to finance CCA's exorbitant education.

"Sallie Mae knew these facts when it issued plaintiffs their high-
interest private education loans ('high-interest private loans')
to pay for their CCA education.  It further knew that CCA needed
Sallie Mae to extend these loans in order to carry out its
fraudulent recruiting scheme, and Sallie Mae, seeking to profit,
happily obliged.  The results harm to the plaintiffs has been
catastrophic.

"Moreover, Sallie Mae knew at all relevant times that there was an
unusually high probability that plaintiffs would be unable to make
the full payments necessary to keep these high-interest private
loans from falling into delinquency and default.  And Sallie Mae
knew that plaintiffs did not know this.  Yet, intent on issuing as
many of these loans as possible, Sallie Mae purposefully did not
tell plaintiffs any of these facts.

"When Sallie Mae loaned CCA purchase money to plaintiffs, it knew
CCA students were defaulting on much smaller, lower-interest
federal student loans at rates that substantially exceeded the
rates at which traditional college students default on such loans.
Sallie Mae knew that by setting very high interest rates
(typically in the range of 12-15 percent) on its high-interest
private loans-often two to four times larger than on federal
loans-it was significantly diminishing plaintiffs' chances of
fully repaying these loans.  Sallie Mae further knew that this
would likely result in significantly raising the plaintiff class's
high-interest private loan default rates relative to traditional
student loan default rates.  Sadly, this likelihood has been
realized; the putative class has defaulted at extraordinarily high
rates."

The school lured students with a string of false promises, the
class claims.

"Among CCA's false and misleading representations were the
following: (a) admission to CCA was a competitive and selective
process; (b) a CCA education increases graduates' incomes and
opportunities in the food-service industry to a degree that makes
a CCA education well worth the sky-high tuition (approximately
$48,000 for the Culinary Arts Program, $28,000 for the Baking and
Pastry Program, and $38,000 for the Management Program) and
corresponding student-loan debt; (c) CCA has an extensive network
of contacts and close relationships with prestigious restaurants
and other food-service employers where CCA graduates can easily
obtain employment in one or more of the positions for which CCA
promises to train them; (d) CCA has an excellent reputation, and
graduates will benefit from that reputation by being able to gain
better and more prestigious jobs with a CCA degree than without
one; (e) CCA students have an extremely high rate of job placement
in jobs for which the students seek to be trained; and (f) the
programs can be financed through student loans, with a resulting
debt service burden that is reasonable and manageable in light of
the income opportunities available to graduate," according to the
complaint.

Sallie Mae knowingly aided and abetted this fraud for its own
profit, the complaint states: "CCA had an agreement with Sallie
Mae to recommend Sallie Mae as a 'preferred lender' to prospective
students: Sallie Mae would provide these students high-interest
private loans to pay the balance of their educational costs not
covered by federal grants and loans."

Sallie Mae conducted its own research and analysis of CCA's
graduation rates and employment statistics of its graduates, so it
knew what was going on, the class claims: "Sallie Mae was acutely
aware, by the time plaintiffs and class members sought loans to
attend CCA, that a CCA education was not worth what it had been a
decade prior, that a significant percentage of CCA's students were
unemployed or making very low wages, and that CCA students were
financially unable to repay fully the high-interest private
loans."

Three of the four lead plaintiffs are unemployed and all four say
they owe significantly more money on their loans than what they
took out.

Plaintiff Adam Correveau claims he took out a $45,974 loan at
13.125 percent interest.  The balance has grown to $145,371. He
says he works as a line cook at a restaurant where he makes $14 an
hour.

Plaintiff Tanif Stephenson took out two loans totaling $16,365 to
finance her education at CCA.  She has already paid $14,608, but
with an interest rate of 13.125 percent, her balance remains
$42,385, according to the lawsuit.

"Ms. Stephenson's only culinary-related employment since she
graduated from CCA was a five-month job as a cashier in a
corporate dining cafeteria, where she occasionally performed light
preparation work in the kitchen," the complaint states.  "Her
hourly wage was $9.00.  She was unable to find any other culinary
work after being laid off from this position, and she believes her
CCA credential actually hurt her culinary-job prospects."

According to the complaint: "The sad, true fact is that a CCA
education does not significantly increase graduates' incomes and
opportunities in the food-service industry.  CCA's reputation has
plummeted since the 1990s.  Indeed, food-industry personnel and
potential employers snicker that CCA stands for 'Can't Cook
Anything.'"

While plaintiffs and the class are saddled with debts they cannot
repay, Sallie Mae has benefited in two ways, the complaint states:
"First, Sallie Mae profited, and intended to profit, by inflating
its balance sheet with billions of dollars of loans to plaintiffs
and others at similar non-traditional schools.  Sallie Mae's
scheme intentionally inflated its stock price and attracted
potential acquirers.

"Second, because the high-interest private loans have such high
interest and Sallie Mae's own cost of funds is so low, Sallie Mae
can profit even if the loans are never repaid fully.

"Sallie Mae's cost of funds (estimated at 1 percent to 2 percent)
is negligible compared to its high-interest private loans' typical
compound interest rates of 12-15 percent.

"Third, because student loans generally are not dischargeable in
bankruptcy, Sallie Mae can squeeze out small amounts of money from
the student borrowers for the rest of their lives.  Sallie Mae
demands plaintiffs' small paychecks, even when the payments do not
cover the accumulating interest, allowing Sallie Mae to profit
while the CCA students' high-interest private loan balances
continue to increase."

Sallie Mae has acknowledged that it knew the students would not be
able to repay the loans, the class claims.

"Sallie Mae's chairman acknowledged that these loans were
'predictably not collectible.'  He admitted that many students
attending CCA and other similarly valueless schools likely would
never be able to earn sufficient income to repay in full the loans
they were taking out," the complaint states.

It adds: "Ignoring the financial burden its actions placed on
borrowers, Sallie Mae blithely extended loans it never expected to
be repaid fully -- all for the purpose of manipulating its
financial reports and increasing its revenue.  Sallie Mae was
fully aware there was a reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs and
class members would be unable to repay their high-interest private
loans in full.  Yet it intentionally failed to disclose this
highly relevant information to plaintiffs and class members at the
time that it issued their high-interest private loans."

Sallie Mae owns the class members' "high-interest private loans
under various names," the complaint states.  It serviced the high-
interest private loans under the name Sallie Mae Servicing LLP,
which was a division of SLM until Dec. 31, 2003, when Sallie Mae
Servicing LLP was merged into Sallie Mae Inc., which took over the
loan servicing.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, rescission of loan
contracts, and disgorgement of unjust profits.  They also want
compensatory and punitive damages for aiding and abetting fraud,
unjust enrichment, and unfair competition.

They are represented by Adam Wolf.


SHAW GROUP: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over CB&I Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Griggs and Timothy Boone, writing for The Advocate, report
that The Shaw Group Inc. has settled a class-action lawsuit filed
by shareholders in 19th Judicial District Court, according to
plaintiff firms Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Motley Rice
LLC.

Under the settlement, which comes a few days before shareholders
will vote on the company's $3 billion sale to CB&I, Shaw agreed to
release analyses by its financial adviser, Morgan Stanley, showing
the company could have increased its share price without selling.
The settlement also provides a way for shareholders who vote
against the sale to CB&I to get a fair price for their stock.

Gentry Brann, a spokeswoman for Shaw, said the Baton Rouge
engineering, fabrication and construction company "absolutely
believes" the sale offers a fair value to shareholders, since CB&I
will pay 72 percent more than what Shaw stock was worth the day
before the deal was announced.

"This lawsuit was brought by a few small shareholders as is fairly
typical in this type of corporate transaction," Ms. Brann said in
a statement.

One report by Morgan Stanley cited in the suit showed that selling
Shaw's 20 percent stake in Westinghouse could add $7 to $16.43 of
"theoretical intrinsic value" per share of common stock.  Another
report showed Shaw could add $11 to $19 per share by executing a
variety of strategic alternatives, which included selling Shaw's
ownership stake in Westinghouse and buying back shares.

In a statement, officials with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Motley Rice LLC said the settlement "offers unprecedented
relief" to shareholders by providing a class-wide, opt-in
appraisal right.

Typically a fair stock price is determined by a judicial
proceeding or an independent value, according to Investopedia.com.
An appraisal right protects shareholders, preventing corporations
involved in a merger from paying less than the company is worth to
shareholders.  Meanwhile, Shaw is urging shareholders to vote for
the merger during a special shareholders meeting set for 9:00 a.m.
on Friday, Dec. 21, at its Essen Lane headquarters.

"Shaw's board of directors believes this merger agreement provides
the best value to all Shaw shareholders and recommends
shareholders vote for the proposal to adopt the merger agreement,"
J.M. Bernhard Jr., Shaw's chairman, president and chief executive
officer, said in a statement.

Shaw cannot complete the merger unless the owners of at least 75
percent of the company's common stock vote in favor of the deal.

Under the proposed merger, Shaw shareholders will receive $46 in
cash and stock -- $41 in cash and 0.13 shares of CB&I stock.


SOLTA MEDICAL: "Aesthera" Suit Settlement Funds Paid Out
--------------------------------------------------------
A Connecticut federal court gave final approval of a settlement
resolving a consumer class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of
Solta Medical, Inc., in August, and the settlement funds have been
paid out, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 4, 2009, Aesthera Corporation, a subsidiary of Solta,
was served with a class action complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging
that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent to
the plaintiffs in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, or TCPA, and Connecticut state law.  The complaint purports
to be filed on behalf of a class, and it alleges that Aesthera
caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent from August 1,
2006 through the present.  Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under
the TCPA and Connecticut state law, attorneys' fees and costs of
the action, and an injunction to prevent any future violations.
In May 2010, Aesthera reached an agreement in principle to settle
the matter on a class-wide basis by consenting to certification of
a settlement class to receive payment out of a settlement fund.
On November 5, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
certification of a settlement class and for preliminary approval
of the parties' settlement.  On April 15, 2011, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion without prejudice on the grounds that the
proposed means of giving notice to the class -- i.e., via fax --
was not adequate.  The Court directed the plaintiffs to revise
their motion to provide for notice to the class via United States
mail.  The Court further directed that the cost of this notice
should be borne by Aesthera without reduction to the amount of the
settlement fund.  On August 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed unopposed motion for certification of a settlement class
and for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement.  This
renewed motion provides for notice to the class via United States
mail.  Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (see 28 U.S.C.
Section 1715), on August 30, 2011, Aesthera gave the Attorney
General of the United States and each of the state attorneys
general notice of the proposed settlement.  On September 29, 2011,
the Court entered an Order stating that it would grant plaintiffs'
renewed motion upon submission of a revised notice to the class
providing that the claim form will be a fillable PDF that will
enable perspective class members to complete and submit the form
electronically.  On October 12, 2011, the parties jointly
submitted revised long-form and summary versions of the Notice to
the Class providing that the Proof of Claim will be a fillable
that will enable perspective class members, if they so choose, to
complete and submit the form electronically without need to print
it.  On October 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs' renewed
Motion to Certify Class for Preliminary Approval of Class
Settlement.  Notice was sent by the claim's administrator to
potential members of the class.  A fairness hearing was held on
March 27, 2012 at which the Court approved the settlement subject
to certain conditions, which have since been fulfilled.  On May 5,
2012, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to submit an amended
settlement agreement and final approval order.  Plaintiffs filed
the required papers on June 15, 2012.

On August 3, 2012, the Court approved the final settlement, and
the claims administrator has paid out the settlement funds.  The
settlement did not have a material impact to the Company's
financial results.

Hayward, Pa.-based Solta Medical, Inc., is a leader in the
medical aesthetics market providing innovative, safe, and
effective solutions for patients that enhance and expand the
practice of medical aesthetics for physicians.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Consumer Suit vs. Reliant Tech. Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Solta Medical, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a consumer class action lawsuit in California, according
to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On May 3, 2012, the Company and Reliant Technologies, which the
Company acquired in December 2008, were served with a class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that Reliant Technologies
caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiff
in 2008, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the putative class,
seeks the greater of actual damages or statutory damages in the
amount of $500 per violation, treble damages for any willful
violations, and injunctive relief.  The parties have exchanged
initial disclosures and discovery has recently commenced.  The
Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss at this
time and intends to vigorously defend this action.

Hayward, Pa.-based Solta Medical, Inc., is a leader in the
medical aesthetics market providing innovative, safe, and
effective solutions for patients that enhance and expand the
practice of medical aesthetics for physicians.


ST. JUDE: Continues to Defend Silzone-Related Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits in Canada
related to Silzone(R), according to the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2012.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the Company stopped selling in
January 2000.  The Company has vigorously defended against the
claims that have been asserted and will continue to do so with
respect to any remaining claims.

The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of one class
action in Ontario, one individual case in Ontario and one proposed
class action in British Columbia by the provincial health insurer.
In Ontario, a trial on common issues commenced in February 2010 in
a class action case involving Silzone patients.  In June 2012, the
Court ruled in the Company's favor on all nine common class issues
and the Court ruled the case should be dismissed.  An order
dismissing that action has been signed by the trial judge.  On
September 14, 2012, counsel for the class filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario.  No briefing
scheduling has yet been set for this appeal.  The proposed class
action lawsuit by the British Columbia provincial health insurer
seeks to recover the cost of insured services furnished or to be
furnished to patients who were also class members in a British
Columbia class action that was resolved in 2010.  Although the
British Columbia provincial health insurer's lawsuit remains
pending in the British Columbia court, there has not been any
activity since 2010.  The individual case in Ontario requests
damages in excess of $1 million (claiming unspecified special
damages, health care costs and interest).  Based on the Company's
historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often
does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed.

The Company has recorded an accrual for probable legal costs,
settlements and judgments for Silzone related litigation.  The
Company is not aware of any unasserted claims related to Silzone-
coated products.  For all Silzone legal costs incurred, the
Company records insurance receivables for the amounts that it
expects to recover based on its assessment of the specific
insurance policies, the nature of the claim and the Company's
experience with similar claims.  The Company's current and final
insurance layer for Silzone claims consists of $13 million of
remaining coverage with two insurance carriers.  To the extent
that the Company's future Silzone costs (the material components
of which are settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related
defense costs) exceed its remaining insurance coverage, the
Company would be responsible for such costs.  The Company has not
recognized an expense related to any potential future damages as
they are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Discovery Phase in March 2010 Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery phase of the securities class action lawsuit brought
in March 2010 is ongoing, according to St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s
November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2012.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude
Medical common stock between April 22, 2009, and October 6, 2009.
The lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for
the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a
preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009.  The
complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as
well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the Company failed to
disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its
products and was not receiving anticipated orders for CRM (Cardiac
Rhythm Management) devices.  Class members allege that the
Company's failure to disclose the information resulted in the
class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price.  In December 2011, the Court issued a decision
denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October
2010.

On October 25, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action, which defendants did not
oppose.  The discovery phase of the case is ongoing, and the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims asserted in this lawsuit.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE: June 2012 Securities Class Suit Dismissed in August
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit brought in June 2012 was
voluntarily dismissed in August 2012, according to St. Jude
Medical, Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

On June 14, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and a
company officer for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities
of the Company between December 15, 2010, and April 4, 2012, who
were damaged thereby.  The complaint, which sought unspecified
damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleged that
the Company failed to disclose information concerning its Riata,
QuickFlex and QuickSite leads.  Class members alleged that the
Company's failure to disclose this information resulted in the
class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price.  On August 20, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed his complaint against the Company.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to the
Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On August 8, 2011, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by
Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and
Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, case
number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or the Daniel Complaint.  Plaintiffs
sought employment with Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC
("Swift Arizona") and that entity has answered the complaint.  The
putative class includes individuals throughout the United States
who sought employment with Swift Arizona and about whom Swift
Arizona procured a criminal background report for employment
purposes during the application process.  The complaint alleges
Swift Arizona violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Among the allegations are that Swift Arizona i) did not make
adequate disclosures or obtain authorizations for applicants; ii)
did not issue pre-adverse action notices for in-person applicants
who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background
report that contained at least one derogatory item that would
disqualify the person under Swift Arizona's hiring policies; and
iii) did not issue adverse action notifications to applicants who
were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report
that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify
the person from under Swift Arizona's hiring policies.  In October
2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filed by Swift
Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which Swift
Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied a partial
motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answer addressing the
remaining allegations.

On October 1, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Swift Arizona says it intends to vigorously defend certification
of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the
class be certified.  The final disposition of this case and the
impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined
at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Garza" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation Company: Garza vs. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV07-0472.  The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year.  The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles.  The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on
August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and remanding the case back to the trial court.  On
November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification
as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
by the Court of Appeals.  On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court granted the Company's petition for review, and on July 31,
2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court
of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic
appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original
denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the
trial court for further evaluation and determination.  Thereafter,
the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and
expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as
employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators
on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by
reference to miles driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees.  Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three month
period under a one year contract that no longer exists.  In
addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.  On April 7,
2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear
this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition
for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.  On August 31, 2011, the
Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the
Arizona Court of Appeals.

During the month of April 2012, the court issued the following
rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied
Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request
to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is
no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit
class size based on statute of limitations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to continue to pursue all available
appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company
believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and,
further, that the claims raised have no merit.  The Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages.  The
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Minimum Wage Suits Pending in Calif. & Ore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend class action
lawsuits in California and Oregon over unpaid minimum wage,
according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint.  The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
01827-L.  Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to
state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand.  On
July 11, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against
Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation
Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the
Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the
Ridderbush Complaint.  The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to
federal court on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028.  Both
putative classes include employees alleging that candidates for
employment within the four year statutory period in California and
within the three year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid
the state mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase.

On July 17, 2012, the parties involved in the Ridderbush Complaint
engaged in a voluntary mediation session in an attempt to resolve
the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigate legal
expense.  Pursuant to subsequent negotiations and pending the
execution of a final settlement agreement, the parties have agreed
to settle the entire matter in the range of $500,000 to $700,000.

The issue of class certification in the Montalvo Complaint must
first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the
case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against
liability and damages pending a determination of class
certification.  The Company says it intend to vigorously defend
against certification of the class as well as the merits of this
matter should the class be certified.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Appeals From "White" Suit Deal Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. in
connection with the reporting of delinquent or charged-off
consumer debt obligations on a consumer report after the consumer
was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding.  The claims allege that
each national consumer reporting company did not automatically
update a consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and
such non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to
assure maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA").

Without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company has agreed to a
settlement of this matter.  On August 19, 2008, the Court approved
an agreement whereby the Company and the other industry defendants
voluntarily changed certain operational practices.  These changes
require the Company to update certain delinquent records when it
learns, through the collection of public records, that the
consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy
proceeding.  These business practice changes did not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's operations or those of
its customers.

In 2009, the Company also agreed, with the other two defendants,
to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for
$17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount has
been, or will be, paid into a settlement fund that will be used to
pay the class counsel's attorney fees, all administration and
notice costs of the fund to the purported class, and a variable
damage amount to consumers within the class based on the level of
harm the consumer is able to confirm.  The Company's share of this
settlement is fully covered by insurance.  Final approval of this
monetary settlement by the Court occurred on July 15, 2011.
Certain objectors to this monetary settlement have appealed the
decision of the Court.

The Company expects these appeals to be consolidated and resolved
sometime in 2013.  If the monetary settlement is not upheld the
Company expects to vigorously litigate this matter and to assert
what it believes are valid defenses to the claims made by the
plaintiffs.  Although the Company believes it has valid defenses
and have not violated any law, and although it has additional
insurance coverage available with respect to this matter, the
ultimate outcome of this matter is not certain.  However, the
Company does not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Still Defends Virginia Public Records Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action captioned Donna K. Soutter v. Trans
Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was filed in 2010 and alleges
that TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. fails to maintain reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect
to the collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release,
dismissal or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state
court system.  The Company, like its competitors, contract with a
third-party vendor to collect public records on a timely basis.
The plaintiff alleges that the diligence used to gather and report
satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and
that the established intervals between trips to the various state
courthouses to gather this information is too infrequent.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter as it
believes it has acted in a lawful manner.


UNITED SITE: Sued for Failure to Provide Valid Rest Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Gonzalez Villa, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. United Site Services of California, Inc.,
Case No. 1-12-CV-237060 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
December 3, 2012) accuses the Defendant of failing to provide and
authorize valid rest periods under the California Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders.

By this action, Mr. Villa seeks relief in the form of penalties
for the Defendant's failure to authorize and provide rest breaks,
as well as damages for the delay in payment of premium wages under
California law.

Mr. Villa and the proposed putative class members are or have been
service technicians and pick-up and delivery drivers working for
the Defendant.

United Site Services is a provider of portable restroom services,
as well as temporary power, temporary storage, temporary fence and
sweeping, and does business throughout the state of California.
The Company is headquartered in Sacramento, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fernando F. Chavez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ
          1530 The Alameda, Suite 301
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 971-3903
          Facsimile: (408) 971-0117

               - and -

          Robert J. Camp, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM
          l929 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 244-1115
          Facsimile: (205) 244-1171

               - and -

          Mitchell G. Allen, Esq.
          JACOBY & MEYERS
          1929 3rd Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (800) 411-4529


VITACOST.COM INC: Appeal From "Miyahira" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit captioned
Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith,
Stewart Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A.
Pabst, Eran Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, remains pending, according
to Vitacost.com, Inc.'s November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  After being
appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO").

On December 12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters.  Lead
plaintiff purports to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results.  The complaint also alleges that as a result of these
actions the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during
the class period.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and
dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.  On
July 23, 2012, lead plaintiff filed notice of appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.  Plaintiff-Appellant filed its opening appellate brief on
September 17, 2012, and Defendant-Appellees filed their responding
brief on October 29, 2012.

The Company records provisions in its consolidated financial
statements for pending litigation when it determines that an
unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  As of September 30, 2012, the Company has
concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred
and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable verdict.  Therefore, the Company
has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial
statements for an unfavorable outcome.  The Company believes that
it has meritorious arguments for affirmation of the Southern
District of Florida's order that it will raise in the appeal.  It
is possible that the Company's consolidated financial statements
could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.


WILIER TRIESTINA: Recalls 200 Izoard XP Bicycles Due to Fall Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wilier Triestina USA LLC, of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 200 Izoard XP Bicycles.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bicycle fork's steerer tube can break while in use, posing a
fall hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Wilier Triestina model Izoard XP bicycles or
framesets that were sold with carbon/alloy forks with serial
numbers between LH0001 and LH4000.  The serial number is located
on the steerer tube of the fork, around six inches from the crown.
Bicycles purchased before January 2012 are not included in this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13075.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
bicycle retailers nationwide from January 2012 through October
2012 for about $2,600 for the bicycle.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and
have an authorized Wilier bicycle dealer check for the serial
number on the fork and, if it is included in the recall, the
dealer will install a new Izoard replacement fork at no charge.
Wilier USA may be reached toll-free at (888) 849-7779 from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.wilier-usa.com/

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to defend lawsuits 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: "We are subject to lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000's we were named
in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in
Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no
allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product categories.
Most of these claims have been dismissed and our current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A
small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of our subsidiaries. The
substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to
alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products. Only a
small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile
mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against us. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it
is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by our former
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants
from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either
do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users
continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may
experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary
course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to
charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have
proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have
regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we
presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have
a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

Tenneco Inc. is a producer of emission control and ride control
products and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle
applications. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle
manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison & CECONY Each Had $10MM Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc., each had an accrued liability of $10 million for
asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in
all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2010,
CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential
liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought
over the next 15 years is $10 million. The estimate was based upon
a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially different.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate
agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims.

The accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers' compensation
proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the
amounts deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at
September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were:

                         Con Edison             CECONY
(Millions of Dollars)   2012     2011        2012     2011
                        -------------        -------------
Accrued liability
- asbestos suits         $10      $10         $10      $10

Regulatory assets
- asbestos suits         $10      $10         $10      $10

Accrued liability
- workers' compensation  $94      $98         $89      $93

Regulatory assets
- workers' compensation  $19      $23         $19      $23

Consolidated Edison, Inc., is a holding company, which owns
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R), which delivers electricity and natural gas to
customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern
New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy
businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply
and energy services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Still Defends Steam Main Rupture Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been
reported that one person died and others were injured as a result
of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged.
Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing
asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of
several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately
93 suits are pending against the company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for
personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The
company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The company has
notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the
policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most of
the company's costs, which the company is unable to estimate, but
which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in
connection with the incident.

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

Consolidated Edison, Inc., is a holding company, which owns
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R), which delivers electricity and natural gas to
customers primarily located in southeastern New York, and northern
New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy
businesses, which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply
and energy services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Date in Fibro Suit vs. ACE Set for May 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against Atlantic City
Electric Company (ACE) (among other defendants) asserting claims
under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The
complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a
former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma
was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on
his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of
action against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if
it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the
complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for,
among other things, the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of
earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and
death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At this time, ACE has
concluded that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to this
matter, but ACE was unable to estimate an amount or range of
reasonably possible loss because (i) the damages sought are
indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, and
(iii) the matter involves facts that ACE believes are
distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home" cause of action
recognized by the New Jersey courts. A trial date has been set for
May 20, 2013.

No further updates were reported in the Form 10-Q filed by Pepco
Holdings, Inc., Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power &
Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company that, through
regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas: Potomac Electric Power
Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL) and Atlantic
City Electric Company (ACE).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 29 Pending Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation, at September 30, 2012, was defending 29
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits 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 29 asbestos related lawsuits in
which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been
filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi
and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation.
We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will
have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil
and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services
with its fleet of 79 mobile offshore drilling units and one
floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO) located
globally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Accrued $235MM for Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., as of September 30, 2012, had an accrual for
pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs
totaling $235 million, 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.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork") is one of many
defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and
Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related
liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that
allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors
by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with
asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with the
exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming,
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair
market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for
inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation
into its claims defense strategy. The Company cautions, however,
that the legislation may be challenged and there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on
Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme
Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its
accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after
June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld. Adverse rulings in cases challenging the constitutionality
of the Pennsylvania statute could have a material impact on the
Company.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2012, the Company paid
$14 million to settle outstanding claims and had claims activity
as follows:

Beginning claims              50,000
New claims                     2,500
Settlements or dismissals     (1,500)
Ending claims                 51,000

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an
analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes by year of exposure
and state filed. As of December 31, 2011, the Company's
outstanding claims were:

Claimants alleging first exposure after 1964     15,000

Claimants alleging first exposure before
or during 1964 filed in:
                          Texas                  12,000
                          Pennsylvania            2,000

Other states that have enacted
asbestos legislation                              6,000

Other states                                     15,000

Total claims outstanding                         50,000

The outstanding claims in each period exclude 3,100 pending claims
involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were, maritime
workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims the
Company believes will not have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash
flow. The outstanding claims also exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

Historically (1977-2011), Crown Cork estimates that approximately
one-quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have
been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos
after 1964.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given our settlement experience
with post-1964 claims, we do not believe that an adverse ruling in
the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any
other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a
material impact on the Company with respect to such claims.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of September 30,
2012.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $235
million, including $179 million for unasserted claims. The
Company's accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims
through the year 2021. The Company's accrual excludes potential
costs for claims beyond 2021 because the Company believes that the
key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2011), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Still Defending Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. (referred to as
"WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims
for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late
1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed
certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains
liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's
assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is
provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the
Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs
in connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements.

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 29, 2012.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., offers online sources for
automotive aftermarket parts and repairs information. The Company
principally sells its products, identified as stock keeping units
(SKUs), to individual consumers through its network of Websites
and online marketplaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Continues to Defend Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. continues to defend itself from asbestos-
related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries, 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: "Two non-operating subsidiaries of a
predecessor company, along with a landfill and waste management
business, were spun-off to our former stockholders in October
2002. The two former subsidiaries were subject to asbestos-related
personal injury claims. We believe that the Company has no
obligation for asbestos-related claims regarding the spun-off
subsidiaries. In addition, the Company has been named as a
defendant in certain asbestos-related claims relating to lines of
business that were discontinued over 20 years ago. We believe that
the Company is sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to
these asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of
business, and we do not believe that the ultimate outcome will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

TMS International Corp. (TMS), formerly Metal Services Acquisition
Corp., is a provider of outsourced industrial services to steel
mills in North America.  These services include scrap management
and preparation; semi-finished and finished material handling;
metal recovery and slag handling; processing and sales; surface
conditioning; raw materials procurement and logistics; and
software-based raw materials cost optimization.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi & NL Unit Still Defending Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc., and its subsidiary NL Industries, Inc., continue to
defend asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are involved in certain legal proceedings
with a number of our former insurance carriers regarding the
nature and extent of the carriers' obligations to us under
insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and
asbestos lawsuits. The issue of whether insurance coverage for
defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for our
lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of
factors and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will
be available.

"We have agreements with three former insurance carriers pursuant
to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our future
lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier
reimburses us for a portion of our future asbestos litigation
defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will
ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred
by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense
costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to seek
additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be
successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or
indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize insurance recoveries in
income only when receipt of the recovery is probable and we are
able to reasonably estimate the amount of the recovery."

"NL has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several
jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our
former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust.
In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from
working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by
NL. There are 1,125 of these types of cases pending, involving a
total of approximately 1,995 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims
of approximately 8,075 plaintiffs have been administratively
dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and
Texas state courts. We do not expect these claims will be
re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria
for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for
this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and
inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date,
we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

"We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal
and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition,
from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or
silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

Valhi, Inc. is a holding company.  It operates in three segments:
Chemicals, Component Products and Waste Management.  The Company
operates through its wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries,
including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX
International Inc. and Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Corp. Had Net Reserves of $393.7MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE)
include amounts for risks relating to asbestos-related illnesses
and environmental impairment. As of September 30, 2012, such gross
and net reserves were $511.2 million and $393.7 million,
respectively, of which $497.7 million and $380.2 million,
respectively, related to Transatlantic and $13.5 million and $13.5
million, respectively, related to CATA. The reserves carried for
such claims, including the IBNR portion, are based upon known
facts and current law at the respective balance sheet dates.
However, significant uncertainty exists in determining the amount
of ultimate liability for asbestos-related and environmental
impairment losses, particularly for those occurring in 1985 and
prior, which represents the majority of Transatlantic's asbestos-
related illness and environmental impairment reserves. This
uncertainty is due to inconsistent court resolutions and judicial
interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent and
coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility
for resultant damages, among other reasons. Further, possible
changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of liability and
other factors could have a material effect on these liabilities
and, accordingly, future earnings.

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

Alleghany Corporation is engaged, through Alleghany Insurance
Holdings LLC (AIHL) and its subsidiaries RSUI Group, Inc. (RSUI),
Capitol Transamerica Corporation (CATA) and Pacific Compensation
Corporation (PCC), in the property and casualty and surety
insurance business.  On March 6, 2012, it merged with
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. (Transatlantic).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend asbestos-related
lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from 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.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) is and has been a
defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing
products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing
products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations
with respect to certain research, publication and other activities
of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the
1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC
learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by
asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed
to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and
factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions to dismiss. There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

As reported in the 2011 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
4,972 asbestos-related claims in 2011. During the nine months
ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, MLIC received approximately
3,909 and 3,750 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The
number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount
of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. To the extent the Company can estimate reasonably
possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, it has been included
in the aggregate estimate of reasonably possible loss. While the
potential future charges could be material in the particular
quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on
information currently known by management, management does not
believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on
the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the U.S., assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2012.

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife), is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50
countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife
operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific,
Europe and the Middle East.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon & Units Continue to Defend PI Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and Baltimore
Gas And Electric Company continue to defend various asbestos
personal injury 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.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and Peco Energy Company
(PECO). The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and
excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these
matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, Generation had
reserved approximately $64 million and $49 million, respectively,
in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of
September 30, 2012, approximately $14 million of this amount
related to 170 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining $50 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. During the second
quarter of 2012, Generation increased its reserve by approximately
$19 million, primarily due to increased actual and projected
number and severity of claims.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation)
subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning
asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises
liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
Approximately 480 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
Generation have pending claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and
third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed
against BGE and Generation in these actions. To date, most
asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or
resolved without any payment by BGE or Generation and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, none of the pending cases are set for trial.
Given the limited discovery, BGE and Generation do not know the
specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the
possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has
been made. The specific facts not known include:

   * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
     allegedly worked as contractors;

   * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

   * the dates on which and the places where the exposure
     allegedly occurred; and

   * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
     exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider. The Company is engaged,
through its principal subsidiaries, Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation), in the energy generation business, and Commonwealth
Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO), in the
energy delivery businesses.


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

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004
and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business,
to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an
affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding
separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and
its sale of that business, ultimate financial responsibility for
uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business
has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has
agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are
covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to
reimbursement of the costs of such defense by the NRG affiliate.
Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting
claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its
experience to date, does not expect these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse
effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the
electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square
mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of
Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and,
together with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns and operates
natural gas distribution systems in six states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge Still Defending 37 PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation continues to defend 37
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership,
was named as a defendant in approximately 251 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between
1989 and 2000. The claims were filed on behalf of seamen or their
personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure
to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned vessels. In
these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants,
including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing
asbestos, as well as other vessel owners. Following certain
administrative proceedings, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name
a group of cases that they intended to pursue and to dismiss the
remaining cases without prejudice. Plaintiffs previously named 40
cases against the Company that they intended to pursue, each of
which involves one plaintiff. The remaining cases against the
Company were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs in the
dismissed cases could file a new lawsuit if they develop a new
disease allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos on board our
vessels. Of the 40 named cases, three were subsequently dismissed,
leaving 37 cases remaining. The Company is presently unable to
quantify the amounts of damages being sought in the remaining
lawsuits because none of the complaints specify a damage amount.
Based on preliminary discovery and settlement demands received to
date, the Company does not believe that it is probable that losses
from these claims could be material, and an estimate of a range of
losses relating to these claims cannot reasonably be made. Based
on the foregoing, management does not believe that any of the
remaining 37 lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, will have
a material impact on our business, financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation (Great Lakes) is a provider
of dredging services in the United States. Great Lakes provides
dredging services in the East, West, and Gulf Coasts of the United
States and worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Still Defending 25 Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., and its subsidiary continues to defend
25 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

IPL is a defendant in approximately twenty-five pending lawsuits
alleging personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure
to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in
IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises defendant",
which means that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or
install asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have
been brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or
subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance which may cover
some portions of these claims; currently, these cases are being
defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote
policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged.

It is possible that material additional loss with regard to the
asbestos lawsuits could be incurred. At this time, an estimate of
additional loss cannot be made. IPL has settled a number of
asbestos related lawsuits for amounts which, individually and in
the aggregate, were not material to IPL's or IPALCO's results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Historically,
settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised of proceeds
from one or more insurers along with comparatively smaller
contributions by IPL. Additionally, several cases have been
dismissed by the plaintiffs in the past few years without
requiring a settlement. We are unable to estimate the number of,
the effect of, or losses or range of loss which are reasonably
possible from the pending lawsuits or any additional asbestos
suits. Furthermore, we are unable to estimate the portion of a
settlement amount, if any, that may be paid from any insurance
coverage for any known or unknown claims. Accordingly, there is no
assurance that the pending or any additional suits will not have a
material adverse effect on IPALCO's results of operations,
financial condition, or cash flows.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., through its regulated utility unit,
Indianapolis Power & Light (IPL), generates, transmits, and
distributes electricity to about 470,000 customers in central
Indiana. IPL has almost 3,500 MW of generating capacity; most of
its power is generated from coal-burning plants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 46,060 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation, as of September 30, 2012, had approximately
46,060 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of September 30, 2012, the Company had pending
approximately 46,060 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 50,090 as of December 31, 2011 and 50,120 as of
September 30, 2011. During the third quarter of 2012, the Company
received approximately 1,100 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 1,060 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the
years 2011 and 2010 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
approximately $33 million and $14 million, respectively. The
Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may
vary year to year as insurance proceeds are not always recovered
in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in
recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos
liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including,
among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to
resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of
its asbestos liabilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Junks CBS, et al. Summary Judgment Bids
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied the motions for
summary judgment filed by Defendants CBS Corporation, Warren
Pumps, LLC, and Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., asserting that the evidence
presented by Plaintiff Roland Stevens does not raise a genuine
issue of material fact.

Mr. Stevens, a boilermaker in the U.S. Navy from 1954 until 1974
and at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard until 1988, was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in November 2011.  He alleges that, throughout
his career, he contacted asbestos-containing materials in the
Defendants' equipment: Westinghouse marine turbines and forced
draft blowers; various Warren pumps; and Cleaver-Brooks boilers.

In deciding against the Defendants' summary judgment motions,
Judge Leighton ruled that genuine issues of material fact remain
regarding (1) Mr. Stevens' contact with Defendants' asbestos-
containing products, (2) whether the exposure was a substantial
factor for his injury, (3) whether the Navy issued specific
instructions about providing warnings, and (4) Mr. Stevens'
knowledge of the risks.

The case is ROLAND L. STEVENS and SHIRLEY J. STEVENS, husband and
wife, Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:11-cv-06073 (W.D. Wash.).  A copy of Judge Leighton's Decision
dated Nov. 19, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/gz513lfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joinder Motions in Ferguson v. AC and S Suit Ok'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Strawbridge of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted all motions for
joinder in the case In Re ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
(No. VI), in relation to: FERGUSON v. A.C. AND S., INC. et al.,
Civil Action No. MDL 875, E.D. Pa. No. 08-90234.  A copy of Judge
Strawbridge's Decision dated Nov. 16, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/GrzKeafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Dist. Ct. Adopts Magistrate Judge's Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered in a Nov. 20, 2012,
decision, that all objections to the reports and recommendations
by Magistrate Judge Angell regarding the Motions to Exclude Expert
Testimony are overruled and that the reports and recommendations
are approved and adopted. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI): VARIOUS, Plaintiffs, v. VARIOUS,
Defendants, No. 2-09-cv-75120-ER, MDL Docket No. 875 (E.D. Pa.).
A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/2Ec5kUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Metro-North, et al.'s Dismissal Bids
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metro-North Commuter Railroad, the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, Consolidated Rail Corporation, and American Premier
Underwriters, Inc., moved jointly for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them filed by
Thomas Neuer.  The complaint alleges Mr. Neuer was exposed to
asbestos from working with steam lines and electrical equipment
throughout his railroad career, which spanned from 1972 to 1989.
The Defendants alleged that Mr. Neuer has failed to show that they
are responsible for his asbestos-related injuries under the
Federal Employers' Liability Act 45 U.S.C. Sec. 511 et seq. for
negligently creating an unsafe workplace.

In a decision dated Nov. 9, 2012, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of
the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the Defendants' summary
judgment motion finding that the record is sufficient to raise an
issue of fact whether Mr. Neuer's asbestos exposure as a railroad
employee caused his injuries.  Judge Heitler noted that, for one,
the "link between asbestos and disease is well documented," citing
Wiegman v AC&S, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 375 (1st Dept 2005).  Judge
Heitler added that expert testimony has established that dust in
the air from asbestos products can cause mesothelioma.  Judge
Heitler held that the Defendants' concerns regarding plaintiff's
experts' methodologies and findings should be raised before at
trial.

The case is THOMAS NEUER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN ART CLAY COMPANY,
INC., et al. Defendants, Docket No. 190335/11, Motion Seq. Nos.
001, 002 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/v9vU6Gfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S.C. Ct. Recommends Dismissal of Suit v. Wachovia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina recommended the summary
dismissal of the asbestos-related personal injury action filed by
Stephanie E. Peay against Wachovia Bank, N.A., holding that an
employee's claims against an employer for personal injury due to
negligence are barred by the exclusive remedy provided under the
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.  In the action, Ms. Peay
alleges that she experienced health issues as a result of
asbestos, mold and paint fumes at the facility where she worked
for three years.

The case is Stephanie E. Peay, Plaintiff, v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.,
a/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, C/A No. 3:12-2009-CMC-PJG
(D. S.C.).  A copy of Magistrate Judge Gossett's Decision, dated
Nov. 20, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/9WhYFufrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of 4 Claims v. Wallace & Gale Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, in a Nov. 25, 2012
opinion affirmed the Circuit Court for Baltimore City's decision
in the case captioned CHARLES T. BRANNAN, JR., et al., v. WALLACE
& GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, No. 2287, September Term 2012
(Md.).  The Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of the
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, which 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.

Appellants in this case are personal representatives of the
estates of four decedents, each of whom pursued to final judgment
claims against various parties in asbestos litigation.  The
Appellants were seeking to hold the Appellee liable for paying a
portion of judgments previously entered in favor of appellants 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 appellants obtained
judgments against other parties.

The Court of Special Appeals noted that the Appellants negotiated
with the tortfeasors who were then parties to the litigation
amounts which the Appellants accepted as payment in full of the
liability for their claims based on asbestos exposure.  Because of
such settlements and payments, had it not been for the unexpected
emergence of the Trust from the W&G bankruptcy, all four
Appellants' claims would now be deemed fully and finally resolved
by the final judgments entered in the four cases, the Court of
Special Appeals held.  The emergence of the Trust from bankruptcy
does not take the cases outside the rule applicable generally to
cases in which a judgment has been paid in full, the Court of
Special Appeals further ruled citing Underwood-Gary, supra, 366
Md. at 670.

The Court of Special Appeals then concluded that under those
circumstances, the Circuit Court correctly ruled that the final
judgment rule precludes further litigation seeking further
compensation for the same injuries from further defendants.

A copy of the Court of Special Appeals' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/CtxQhPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX v. Lawyers Suit to Proceed to Jury Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the motions for
summary judgment filed separately by plaintiff CSX Transportation,
Inc., and the lawyer defendants in the case captioned CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT V. GILKISON, PEIRCE,
RAIMOND & COULTER, P.C., a Pennsylvania professional corporation
a/k/a ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., a Pennsylvania
professional corporation, ROBERT PEIRCE, JR., LOUIS A. RAIMOND,
MARK T. COULTER and RAY HARRON, M.D., Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:05CV202 (STAMP)(N.D. W.Va.).

Judge Stamp held that there are genuine issues of material fact as
to whether CSX made false assertions in its third amended
complaint and regarding CSX's fraudulent intent, which issues must
be tried before a jury.  The third amended complaint alleges that
the defendants have orchestrated a scheme to inundate CSX with
thousands of asbestos cases without regard to their merit.  With
respect to the lawyer defendants' motion, Judge Stamp found that
there is sufficient evidence alleged in the record by CSX to
support the sham exception.

Copies of Judge Stamp's Decision dated Nov. 26, 2012, are
available at http://is.gd/6cPyPCand http://is.gd/mPiAoefrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Directs Insurers to Pay Union Carbide
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-
Respondent, v. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants, COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-
Appellants, 8718, 600804/04, 8719 (N.Y.), the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, ruled in a
decision dated Dec. 6, 2012, that the Plaintiff met its burden of
establishing that the damages at issue were the result of an
"occurrence" and thus that the Defendant's policy provided
coverage.  Indeed, the Court held that the record supports the
Plaintiff's contention that, although it was aware of some risk
involved in the utilization of asbestos, it believed that its
asbestos products could be used safely under the right conditions.
The Plaintiff also offered, as further proof of any lack of
intent, evidence that it published regulatory information in trade
periodicals and provided information regarding the dangers of
asbestos, as well as guidance concerning its proper usage, to its
clients and potential customers.  In addition, the Plaintiff
presented evidence that, during the relevant time period, the
federal government shared its belief that asbestos could be used
safely and, to that end, promulgated regulations designed to
control, monitor and record asbestos usage -- but, importantly,
did not ban it.

Since the Plaintiff established coverage, the burden shifted to
the Defendants to show that, pursuant to the policy's exclusion,
plaintiff intended the damages.  The Court found that the
Defendants have failed in this regard.  The Defendants asserted
that the Plaintiff intended the damages because it knew that
asbestos would cause injuries and that claims would be filed
against it.  The record, however, shows that the Plaintiff was
merely aware that asbestos could cause injuries and that claims
could be filed.  The Plaintiff's "calculated risk" in
manufacturing and selling its products despite its awareness of
possible injuries and claims does not amount to an expectation of
damage, the Court held.

The Court also ruled that the Defendants' collateral estoppel
argument based on a California jury verdict fails.  The nature of
the jury instructions in the California case renders it impossible
to discern exactly which facts, or acts of plaintiff, played a
part in the jury's decision, or upon exactly which portion of the
jury instruction the jury based its punitive damages award.  As
such, the Defendants cannot show an "an identity of issue which
has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive
of the present action," the Court concluded.

A copy of the Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/fN0uRu
from Leagle.com.

Columbia Casualty Company and Continental Casualty Company are
represented by:

         Catherine B. Altier, Esq.
         FORD MARRIN ESPOSITO WITMEYER & GLESER, LLP
         Wall Street Plaza
         23rd Floor
         New York, NY 10005-1875
         Tel: (212) 269-4900
         Fax: (212) 344-4294
         Email: cbaltier@fmew.com

Argonaut Insurance Company is represented by:

         Edward Fogarty, Jr., Esq.
         Brian M. Reid, Esq.
         LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
         420 Lexington Ave.
         Suite 2104
         New York, NY 10170-2199
         Tel: (212) 434-0101
         Fax: (212) 434-0105
         Email: fogarty@litchfieldcavo.com
                reid@litchfieldcavo.com

Union Carbide Corporation is represented by:

         Steven R. Gilford, Esq.
         PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
         Three First National Plaza
         70 West Madison
         Suite 3800
         Chicago, IL 60602-4342
         Tel: (312) 962-3510
         Fax: (312) 962-3551
         Email: sgilford@proskauer.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Friable Fibro at Methuen High to Be Sealed-In
------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Moser of The Eagle-Tribune reports that a building
material coating containing asbestos that was discovered in the
Methuen high school can be safely left in the building after the
renovation, officials say.

The material was discovered in September as workers gutted the
south wing of the 1970s-era school, which is sealed off from the
rest of the building as it undergoes a complete renovation.  Most
of the material is a coating and is non-friable, meaning it does
not easily break into small fragments.

"The coating was found, and a work plan was put in place," said
Gino Baroni, owner of Trident, the Salem, N.H., project management
company overseeing the $100 million renovation project.

The substance that was found was a mastic applied to some of the
vertical steel beams on the south wing as a waterproofing to
prevent rust, Baroni said.  Part of the project included welding
stiffeners to some of these beams.

Consigli, the construction company working on the building, and
Trident drew up a plan for the Department of Environmental
Protection to work around the mastic.

After several meetings, DEP in October approved a plan to attach
the stiffeners to parts of the beam without the asbestos mastic
after the contractor conducted a test to make sure heat from the
welding did not melt the substance, said Joseph Ferson, a
spokesman for DEP.

Once the work is complete, the mastic and beams will remain as
they are and sealed up again inside the walls.

The contractor also hired American Environmental of Holyoke to
haul away and dispose of some insulation board and block that had
the mastic on it.  Ferson said DEP approved a window of Nov. 2
through Dec. 31 to conduct that work.

Baroni said the main issue with the mastic is not inhabitability
because the entire wing has been sealed off from the occupied
north wing.  Rather, the concern was for welders and others
working nearby.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mastics contain
between 5 and 25 percent asbestos.

This phase of the renovation project, during which the new wing
will be built and the south wing will be renovated inside and out,
is due to be done mid-2013.  Classes for sophomores, juniors and
seniors, now currently in the north wing, will be moved to the
completed portions while the north wing is renovated next year.

Freshmen are currently at the former Central Elementary School on
Ditson Place.

The whole project is scheduled to be completed by summer 2014 and
be open in time for the 2014-15 school year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Governor to Sign Anti-Double-Dipping Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a bill headed to the Ohio
governor aims to curb duplicate lawsuits over on-the-job asbestos
exposure in a state with one of the nation's largest backlogs of
such cases.

A spokesman for Gov. John Kasich said Tuesday, Dec. 11, he will
sign the measure.  It would require workers to divulge all
asbestos claims filed by or for them or face perjury charges.

Proponents say the proposal prevents double-dipping by victims,
who have two separate ways of pursuing damages: trusts set up by
sometimes bankrupted companies to compensate victims, or lawsuits
against active businesses.

Opponents say the bill impedes legitimate claims.  They say its
passage makes Ohio the first state to impose such claims
restrictions.

Similar legislation has been introduced in Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Texas and West Virginia and in Congress.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Chief Federal Judge Tackles Montevallo Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin J. Reed for Alabama Live (al.com) reports that the high-
profile Birmingham attorney who is an ex-chief federal judge
representing various people worried about health threats from mold
and asbestos at Montevallo Elementary School says they want a safe
environment for education and work.

U.W. Clemon described his clients including students, parents,
workers and others at the facility in a letter dated Monday, Dec.
10, to the attorney for the Shelby County Board of Education that
outlines their concerns and desires for the building and
situation.

"As you now know, our law firm represents parents/legal guardians
of certain students who will not send their students into the
hazardous Montevallo Elementary School (MES) due to the existence
of black mold, snakes, asbestos, and other hazardous materials
within the school," the letter states.

"We also represent legal guardians of certain Hispanic students
equally affected by these hazardous conditions, but who continue
to send their children to MES out of fear of retaliation.  Our
clients also include non-student occupants of the MES facility
whose health is and has been adversely affected daily by the
hazardous conditions of MES," according to the five-page letter.

Clemon states the firm's clients in the matter want Shelby County
School District Superintendent Randy Fuller to identify "any non-
hazardous facility" to send the children.

"In sum, my clients are eager to send their children to any non-
hazardous school designated by the Superintendent.  But they will
not, under threat of truancy proceedings and in the absence of a
court order, send their children into a hazardous facility and
thereby imperil not only their immediate and future health, but
their very lives," the letter states.

The letter arrived on the same day as more than 150 parents with
their children gathered in the school's cafeteria for a meeting
with Fuller and other district representatives to voice complaints
and criticisms about the situation.  Many parents have pulled
their children from attending the school, despite officials
stating the building is safe based on air quality tests and
cleanup and construction work.

Parents have identified numerous health issues in their children
who attend the school, suspecting the mold in the building is the
source.

Clemon himself is no stranger to the concerns, blaming a recent
hospitalization on mold problems in the school after attending a
parent-teacher organization meeting in the cafeteria in past
weeks.

His letter to Birmingham lawyer Donald Sweeney, Jr., of the
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings law firm outlines a host of health
concerns and problems with the building experienced by children,
workers and others.

"The children of my clients, and for that matter a great many
children attending MES, continue to suffer serious respiratory
conditions (asthma, fever, chills and fever, shortness of breath,
irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and lung), which has resulted
in frequent and costly treatments at medical facilities, including
Children's Hospital in Birmingham," the letter states.

"Non-student regular occupants of MES have experienced inordinate
rates of infertility and miscarriages.  The long-term MES
custodian, exposed daily to the asbestos materials in the Boiler
Room, died of lung cancer last year," the letter continues.

The concerns extend beyond those witnessed by parents, children
and others.  "It is imperative to also note that while the
prevalence of respiratory and other symptoms are painfully obvious
at this point, there may well be other injuries to my clients,
symptoms of which are not apparent at this point," the letter
states.

Clemon accuses the school district of knowing about the problems
with mold since 2007 at the earliest but failing to conduct proper
work to correct the issue.

"The black mold/moisture problem at the school has been known for
more than a generation.  The Superintendent has been fully aware
of the problem for a very long time; but instead of installing a
complete draining system around the entire school, as was
recommended to him five years ago ... he has basically implemented
the same stop-gap measures over and over again," according to the
letter.

A parent-teacher organization president in 2007 noted problems
with mold and leaks in fifth-grade classrooms and the "need to
install comprehensive drainage to get to the root of the problem,"
the letter states.

Five years ago a U.S. Department of Agriculture district
conservationist reviewed the school's mold and moisture problems
and concluded the building needed a "drainage system to disperse
water laterally and away from [the MES] building which will
resolve mold problems inside lower classrooms," the letter states.

In 2012, the problems continue to proliferate, Clemon notes.

"Five years hence, in September 2012, the severity of mold in the
fifth grade classrooms required that the Superintendent to remove
the students from MES and house them in portable classrooms.
After three months, and a "cleanup," the Superintendent has now,
once more and again, declared the classrooms to be safe and all
other parts of MES to be safe again," Clemon states.

Clemon lists other concerns about 10 snakes found on the school
grounds, including inside classrooms and the kindergarten hallway,
in the last two years and the presence of asbestos in the
building.  He accuses the school district of failing to provide
asbestos reports required by law to parents and others.

Copies of the letter also went to the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the North District of Alabama, various officials with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Alabama Department of
Education.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Committee Examines ARD Cost Recovery Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Safety & Health Practitioner Newsletter reports that a Wales
Assembly Committee has launched a public consultation on a Bill
aimed at recovering costs of treatment for asbestos-related
diseases (ARD).

Proposed by Mick Antoniw AM, a former personal-injury lawyer, the
Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Disease (Wales) Bill is at
the first stage of the legislative process and is being considered
by the Health and Social Care Committee.

This stage examines general principles, such as whether a law is
necessary or whether the objective can be achieved through current
legislation, and whether the wording of the Bill will achieve its
stated aims.

The objective of the Bill, according to the accompanying
Explanatory Memorandum, is "to enable the Welsh ministers to
recover from a compensator (being a person, by or on behalf of
whom, a compensation payment is made to, or in respect of, a
victim of asbestos-related disease) certain costs incurred by the
NHS in Wales in providing care and treatment for the victim of the
asbestos-related disease."

Added Mr?Antoniw: "It is intended that the funds recovered will be
used to provide additional assistance for asbestos victims and
their families."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nakasuk Elementary Abatement Nears Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News North reports that Nakasuk Elementary School in Iqaluit
will soon be back to normal -- crews are almost done removing
asbestos which was found in the school's old construction
materials.

Crews worked on the school every night for the past six weeks.

"I would suggest that it was a very successful project," said
Barry Cornthwaite, who is with the Department of Education.

He said the project went well, even if they had to deal with a few
extra requests from the Worker's Safety and Compensation
Commission.

Those extra requests added two weeks to the project, and meant
getting rid of more asbestos-laden materials than originally
planned.

"Instead of having one sealift container of debris from the
school, we're actually at five or six sealift containers full of
debris from the school."

The delay had no impact on students.

"The repair work was completed in the evenings and on weekends so
it didn't interrupt any student instructional time," said school
principal Tracey MacMillan.

MacMillan said she's thankful to the teachers, who had to do their
prep work at home, and to the contractor, Indoor Air Quality
Ottawa.

She said that in addition to the renovation work, the company
donated more than 11,000 cereal bars to the school's breakfast,
lunch and snack program.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Partly Blamed for Carpenter's Death
----------------------------------------------------------
The In-Cumbria Newsletter reports that exposure to asbestos was
partly to blame for a carpenter's death, an inquest heard.

James Thomson, of West Shore Park, Walney, died in Furness General
Hospital on Sept. 27 this year.

The inquest into the 72-year-old's death heard he regularly worked
with asbestos during his working life.

The post mortem report revealed the immediate cause of death was a
pulmonary embolism, or blood clot.

Mr. Ian Smith, South and East Cumbria coroner, said this was
typically a way in which a malignancy killed someone.

Mr. Thomson' s son, Lee Michael Martin, told the hearing in Barrow
Town Hall that his father used to smoke but stopped around 25
years ago and was in good general health, having had his
troublesome knees replaced.

He said Mr. Thomson worked in Barrow shipyard, at Govan in Glasgow
and various construction companies, and had told him working with
asbestos was "a regular occurrence" on building sites in the
1970s.

Mr. Smith said the pathologist had found pleural plaques in Mr.
Thomson's lungs, but there was no direct evidence of asbestos.

The pathologist had looked for asbestos fragments in the lungs but
was unable to find any.

But Mr. Smith said: "It can be like looking for a needle in a
haystack.  It's not proof that they weren't there.

"It's not possible in his view to say in certainty that the lung
cancer was caused by the asbestos, or certainly by the asbestos
alone.

"Asbestos is a factor, but not the only factor."

Summing up, Mr. Smith told the inquest on Friday: "Was the cancer
caused by asbestos exposure?  Probably.  Partially, not fully.

"The risk of getting cancer if you smoke and have contact with
asbestos is much greater than if you only had one or the other.
The fact he smoked historically is relevant to his condition."

He recorded a verdict of death by a combination of natural causes
and industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Bags of Fibro Found Under Winnipeg School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jen Skerritt of The Winnipeg Free Press reports that the province
has launched a review to determine why 25 bags of asbestos were
stored underneath a First Nations school.

Berens River band council ordered the community's kindergarten-to-
Grade 9 school closed after a worker discovered the asbestos in
the school's crawl space.  Community leaders felt it was unsafe
for the school's 350 students and 100 staff to go into the school
until an independent investigation determines there is no health
danger.

Officials from the province's workplace safety and health division
ordered the school closed on Friday, Nov. 30, until results from
further tests deem it safe for children to return.

Deputy education minister Gerald Farthing said officials have
launched a review to examine why the asbestos was stored at the
school, how long it's been in the school's crawl space and whether
the situation should have been handled differently.

"First of all, we don't think it should've been stored there in
the first place, properly or not," he said Monday, Dec. 10.  "We
want to make sure that every time we're dealing with asbestos in
schools, it is handled in a safe and transparent way."

Farthing said provincial education officials will conduct the
review with the school division, community and federal government
officials.

Results from air, soil and surface samples taken from classrooms,
the furnace room and the crawl space will be available in the
coming days, Farthing said, and a Calgary-based engineering firm
was to conduct further testing on Dec. 11.

"Right now, we have to figure out whether or not kids can go back
to this school," he said.

Berens River Chief George Kemp said residents are particularly
concerned because 60 children have sought treatment for
respiratory illnesses in recent months, although no one knows
whether the illnesses are linked to the school.

Frontier School Division chief superintendent Ray Derksen said the
school will be closed until Jan. 7.  He said asbestos remediation
was done with renovations to the mechanical system, and the
asbestos was stored according to regulations and was to be removed
by winter road this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Exposes Workers at Aberystwyth Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Press Release issued on behalf of the Health and Safety
Executive by the Regional News Network reports that significant
safety failures by a plumbing company may have led to two workers
being exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers during a major
refurbishment project on flats in Aberystwyth.

The workers -- a site manager and a subcontractor -- were not
provided with information about the presence of asbestos while
working at the flats in the Penparcau area between November 2010
and February 2011.

Superior Plumbing Installations Ltd, the principal contractor at
the site, appeared before Aberystwyth Magistrates on Dec. 10 in a
prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The court heard that a routine inspection by HSE found contractors
carrying out refurbishment work without taking account of asbestos
that may have been present.

Workers had removed 82 meters of cement board, which a survey had
identified as "presumed to contain asbestos", by breaking it up
with a hammer and shoveling it into a wheelbarrow before putting
it in a general waste skip.  The contractor was due to do the same
on two other properties, one of which had asbestos confirmed in
the soffits.

HSE found that Superior Plumbing had made no effort to obtain
asbestos surveys that existed for the properties to determine if
asbestos was present in the flats (Penybont, Gwel Rheidol, Bryn
Ysgol and Tremafon blocks) or assess the risk of working with
asbestos on the site.

The firm also failed to make a plan to properly deal with its
removal and hired a site manager for the scheme who had not been
given asbestos awareness training.

Superior Plumbing Installations Ltd, of Windmill Hill Business
Park, Whitehill Way, Swindon, pleaded guilty to a breach of
Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was
fined GBP5,000 and ordered to pay GBP3,830 in costs.

HSE Inspector Phil Nicolle, speaking after the hearing, said:

"Superior Plumbing's failure to follow advice, guidance and their
own procedures to identify the presence of asbestos and plan for
its safe removal has needlessly created a serious long term risk
to workers' health.

"Contractors must ensure an asbestos survey has been carried out
where a building -- or part of it -- needs upgrading,
refurbishment or demolition.

"The survey must locate and identify all asbestos-containing
material before any structural work begins and appropriate
arrangements put in place to deal with any asbestos containing
materials that are uncovered.

"Around 4,000 people die every year as a result of breathing-in
asbestos fibers, making it the biggest single cause of work-
related deaths in the UK."

Further information on working safely with asbestos can be found
on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos

                             Notes

The Health and Safety Executive is Britain's national regulator
for workplace health and safety.  It aims to reduce work-related
death, injury and ill health.  It does so through research,
information and advice; promoting training; new or revised
regulations and codes of practice; and working with local
authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement.
www.hse.gov.uk

Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his
undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably
practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be
affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health
or safety."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scrappers Stir Up Fibro, Cleanup to Cost $78K
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin P. O'Connor of The Herald News reports that a few hundred
dollars in copper scrap will cost the Housing Authority $78,000 to
clean up after the mess criminals left behind.

Scrappers broke into the two vacant apartment buildings at Oak
Village, 1177 Locust St., sometime in the past month to tear out
the copper pipes connected to the boilers that once heated the
buildings.

For their work, the thieves will probably get less than $200 from
the scrap yard, officials say.

But when the thieves struck, they ripped down the asbestos
insulation wrapped around the pipes.

"The asbestos dust went everywhere," said Peter Proulx, the
director of facilities management for the Housing Authority.  "We
have to clean that up before we can tear the buildings down."

The buildings at Oak Village were condemned by the city and the
Housing Authority and scheduled for demolition sometime this
month.

"Oak Village was built on an old quarry," Proulx said.  "The
footings on two of the seven buildings must have been set
improperly when the development was built in 1967.  The two
buildings sank from the middle."

At first Housing Authority maintenance personnel were able to keep
the apartments open by resetting windows and doors that would
stick closed or refuse to open.  One year ago, the city's building
and fire inspectors stepped in and said the buildings had listed
so severely that it was no longer safe to send electricity and gas
through the wires and pipes.

The fear was that wires would work loose or gas pipes would break
because of the tilt.

The two buildings, containing 10 apartments total, were vacated
and boarded.

Southern Middlesex Industries of Norwood was the low bidder,
offering to tear down the buildings, cart away the waste and
restore the site for $267,000.

"When we did the preconstruction inspection, we discovered the
damage," Proulx told the Housing Authority at its meeting Tuesday,
Dec. 11.

SMI did a full inspection of the site.  The Housing Authority
approved a change to the contract, agreeing to pay $78,000 more
for the asbestos cleanup.

Of that, $50,000 will be paid by the Housing Authority's insurance
policy, Proulx said.

"The problem is the asbestos dust," Proulx explained.  "Instead of
an easy and clean operation of cutting the insulation and carrying
it outside in one piece, the company now has to go in and clean
every square inch before they begin demolition."

Asbestos is a very efficient insulator, but the dust has been
shown to cause lung cancer.

Workers trained to remove asbestos work in full protective suits
with breathing masks designed to capture the dust.  Asbestos
abatement contractors also set up vacuum systems to capture
demolition dust before it can leave the building.

The cleanup is expected to add 51 days to the project.

"We are hoping they will begin work [Dec. 13]," Proulx said on
Wednesday, Dec. 12.  "We don't expect the demolition to begin
until after the holidays.

"We should have the site ready to plant grass by the spring."

Nothing will be built on the site.  Housing Authority managers are
meeting with Oak Village residents to decide what to do with the
open space, officials said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Putative Class Action Against BASF
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles for Law360 reports that a New Jersey federal
judge on Wednesday, Dec. 12, dismissed a putative class action
accusing BASF Catalysts LLC and its counsel Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP of scuttling thousands of asbestos injury suits by
concealing and destroying evidence revealing that the company's
talc products contained the carcinogen.

The suit sought declaratory and injunction relief enabling
potentially thousands of individuals to refile their asbestos
claims against BASF in courts across the country.  But U.S.
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler said on Dec. 12 that he "simply
lacks authority" to grant such a request that is barred by under
Article III of the Constitution and would require the court to
impermissibly exercise its power over state courts throughout the
country.

"The amended complaint describes abhorrent and outrageous
litigation tactics, and if the allegations about the conduct of
BASF, Cahill and their employees are true, the court would hope
that some redress in the fora where the allegedly invalid
dismissals were obtained could be pursued," Judge Chesler said.

The complaint was brought by representatives of six individuals
who died from asbestos-related ailments and over the span of more
than 20 years brought complaints against BASF alleging their
ailments were caused by workplace exposure to talc products
manufactured and sold by BASF predecessor Englehard Corp. and its
related entities.

To shield BASF's liability from a slew of asbestos-related suits,
the plaintiffs claimed the company -- with Cahill's assistance --
destroyed evidence showing the talc products contained asbestos
and lied to courts and litigants that there were any documents
revealing otherwise.

In motions to dismiss the complaint, BASF and Cahill rebutted the
plaintiffs claims, saying the underlying matters were litigated
fairly.

Cahill's motion argued only a handful of companies said that the
plaintiffs' contention that they may have settled underlying
litigation for a nominal amount because they were misled about the
existence of asbestos in talc was "beyond implausible."  While a
handful of companies that have been targeted in similar litigation
may have had asbestos in their talc products, a review of the
history of asbestos litigation reveals talc is at the "extremely
low end of the asbestos-exposure spectrum," the firm said.

BASF through a subsidiary owned a talc mine in Johnson, Vt., from
1967 to 1983 that tests revealed contained asbestos fiber.  A BASF
executive later testified at depositions during an injury suit
filed in 1979 that the company was aware the mine contained
asbestos.

Aware of the risks the deposition posed, BASF and Cahill secured a
confidential settlement in the original suit and then allegedly
began collecting and destroying documents related to the Johnson
mine.  The mine was closed in 1983 and flooded.

The transcript, along with other concealed evidence, reappeared in
2009 during another injury suit in New Jersey, according to
Wednesday's ruling.

Judge Chesler held that the plaintiffs' fraud claim was barred by
New Jersey's litigation provision.  Although the plaintiffs argued
that the defendants alleged actions fell outside the scope of
lawful litigation activity, the alleged fraud and omissions
occurred during judicial proceedings, the ruling said.

Judge Chesler also noted that, as to questions about litigation
privilege, the plaintiffs relied heavily on case law from outside
of New Jersey.

"Plaintiffs' argument that the scope of the privilege is limited
to statements made within the bounds of an attorney's ethical and
lawful duties conflicts with the jurisprudence on the subject and
with the New Jersey Supreme Court's express holding which rejects
consideration of the propriety of the attorneys' conduct," Judge
Chesler said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for
comment Wednesday, Dec. 12.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher M. Placitella --
cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- Mike Coren -- mcoren@cprlaw.com --
Michael Noonan -- mnoonan@cprlaw.com -- and Matthew T. Stone
mnoonan@cprlaw.com -- of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC.

BASF is represented by Stephen M. Orlofsky --
Orlofsky@BlankRome.com -- and David C. Kistler --
Kistler@BlankRome.com -- of Blank Rome LLP and Eugene F. Assaf --
eugene.assaf@kirkland.com -- and Michael F. Williams --
michael.williams@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.  Cahill
is represented Robert E. Ryan -- rryan@connellfoley.com -- Craig
S. Demareski -- cdemareski@connellfoley.com -- and Marc D. Haefner
-- mhaefner@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley LLP.

The case is Williams et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC et al., case
number 2:11-cv-01754, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Camp Roberts Demolition Process Begins
-------------------------------------------------------
According to Pat Guth for The Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance, along
Highway 101 near San Miguel, California sits more than 700
buildings that once housed America's soldiers in the 1940s.  But
much of the now-dilapidated base, known as Camp Roberts, has sat
empty for more than 30 years.  Unfortunately, however, though the
majority of the camp has long been an eyesore, it's taken more
than a decade to get permission to tear it down, largely due to
the toxins inside, including asbestos, lead-based paint, and other
hazards.  Now, the demolition process has finally begun.

An article in The Tribune reports that a three-phase project for
demolishing the hundreds of buildings began this week and will
cost about $3.4 million.  Much of the expense pertains to the fact
that hazardous materials, including asbestos, need to be removed
and disposed of properly before the wrecking ball comes in.  In
fact, it's been noted that nearly all of the old green-roofed
structures at once-busy Camp Roberts contain asbestos.  That
includes barracks, mess halls, chapels, supply rooms and
administration offices.

Because of the large amount of hazardous materials at the camp,
the California National Guard -- which runs the camp -- was made
to build its own 85-acre hazardous waste landfill for disposal of
the toxic debris, including not only asbestos-containing items but
also wood contaminated with lead-based paint.  There is also
disease risks from rat droppings found throughout the camp.  The
permits for the landfill took more than 10 years, hence the delay.

But it isn't really the end of the camp.  Though what currently
remains will be demolished, in place the National Guard will be
building new living quarters, a solar farm, and a modern dining
hall.  Parking and native landscape will spring up where the old
barracks once sat.

The health of those who will live and work at Camp Roberts is why
it's so important that the hazards be removed, officials note,
eliminating the risk of asbestos exposure and exposure to
additional toxins, which can cause serious illnesses.  Veterans --
including perhaps many who served and resided at Camp Roberts --
have the highest rates of mesothelioma in the nation.  This cancer
is a direct result of asbestos exposure.  Veterans were at risk of
exposure during the World War II and Korean Conflict years and
part of the Vietnam era as well, as asbestos materials were used
abundantly on bases and aboard military ships during those years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: USS Enterprise Vets Now Suffer ARD, Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports that the USS
Enterprise, one of the most decorated aircraft carriers in
American military history, was retired earlier this month after 51
years of active duty, spanning both the heights and depths of the
Navy's asbestos era.

The USS Enterprise was the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier, allowing it to pioneer the defense of American interests
around the world, providing military muscle for every major
conflict since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

It was officially inactivated during a week-long ceremony at the
Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia, where thousands of former crew
members, families and ship builders gathered to say goodbye.

Several major upgrades through the years allowed it to become the
oldest active combat vessel in the fleet and the only aircraft
carrier of its class ever built.  More than 100,000 crewmen served
under 23 different commanders.

It took almost four years, 61,000 tons of steel, 230 miles of pipe
and tubing, 1,500 tons of aluminum and untold tons of asbestos to
build before the Navy dubbed it "The First, The Finest," super
carrier.

          Sailors at Risk for Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer

For all its glory and the good it did, it also undoubtedly has led
to -- and will continue to lead to -- many cases of asbestos-
related disease, including mesothelioma, the rare cancer that has
struck a disproportionate amount of Navy veterans.

Every United States Navy ship commissioned before 1975 made
extensive use of asbestos from bow to stern.  It was considered an
excellent way to fireproof and insulate the ships and most
everything on them.

Engine rooms, fire rooms and pipes throughout the ships, including
those that crossed through the mess halls and sleeping quarters,
were covered with asbestos lagging.  Asbestos was popular because
it was chemical-resistant, had good tensile strength and was heat-
resistant -- all qualities that warships needed.

For years, the Navy minimized the threat that asbestos posed to
sailors, ignoring many of the scientific and medical warnings
about the dangers.

Navy veterans who served aboard the Enterprise in the 1960s, ?70s
and ?80s are just now being diagnosed with mesothelioma.  It can
take anywhere from 20 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos
before symptoms of mesothelioma will appear.  Too often, the early
symptoms often are misdiagnosed as less serious health issues.

                    New Asbestos Safety Standards

The Navy now requires ships built before 1980 to carry an
Emergency Asbestos Response Team (EART) to properly identify and
handle potential asbestos exposures, but that requirement has only
been implemented in the last two decades.

When ships like the Enterprise aged, the asbestos throughout them
became more brittle and more dangerous as the microscopic fibers
went airborne.  When asbestos was uncovered on the Enterprise
while docked, civilian contractors were usually hired to assess
and abate the problem.

But because nuclear-powered vessels can stay at sea almost
indefinitely -- six-month deployments were not unusual -- asbestos
discoveries are handled today by on-board EART teams.  When the
Enterprise was at sea in those early years, though, the asbestos
problems were ignored, putting sailors at unnecessary risk.

"A lot of the crew doesn't even know what we do," Machinist Mate
3rd Class Derek Begay, EART member aboard the Enterprise, said in
a story written by the Carrier's public affairs office in 2006.
"We assemble whenever asbestos is discovered.  We come and isolate
the area, and remove whatever insulation needs to be removed."

The addition of the EART teams -- and the Navy's attention to the
asbestos problem -- has made a huge difference in safety for
today's military personnel, but it didn't help those exposed 30
and 40 years ago.

According to the Navy, crew members now are taught to avoid any
contact with the asbestos lagging around the ship, and are
instructed to report it so the EART teams can handle it
appropriately.  They come equipped with the same precautionary
equipment -- the respirators, protective clothing, and boots --
that the trained civilian contractors wear.

"It feels good when you can get out  there and do something not a
lot of people on board can do," said machinist's mate and EART
team member Aaron Eads.  "It's good to help out with safety issues
like this, and prevent people from getting sick down the road."

At the time it was built, the Enterprise was the largest ship in
the world.  Because it didn't need conventional fuel, it was
capable of carrying considerably more aircraft fuel than any other
carrier.  The nuclear reactors allowed it to set speed records and
avoid a need to refuel, when carriers are the most vulnerable to
attack.

Retiring the Enterprise reduces the number of carriers in the
United States fleet to 10.  According to the Associate Press, it
will be several years before the Enterprise will be fully
decommissioned.  It's nuclear fuel must first be removed, making
it unfit for service.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norwell Joins in AHERA Awareness Training
----------------------------------------------------------
The Wicked Local Norwell reports that 17 custodial employees and
designated school system managers from Norwell and other
surrounding Massachusetts communities recently participated in an
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Awareness (AHERA) Training
seminar as required under federal environmental protection
regulations.

The three-hour training program took place Oct. 23 in Plymouth at
the Plymouth Public Library and was presented free of charge by
the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, the Town of
Norwell's property and casualty insurance provider.

Janet McKenna, an environmental engineer with the Massachusetts
Department of Labor Standards, conducted the AHERA Awareness
Training program, which focused on the roles and responsibilities
of both K-12 school custodians and the official AHERA Designated
Person in each Local Education Agency.

Custodians learned about general asbestos awareness topics such as
health effects, properties of asbestos, how to manage asbestos
safely in place, operations and maintenance practices, common
locations of asbestos within a building and asbestos management
planning.

AHERA Designated Persons, who will manage local adherence to the
requirements, learned about selection of licensed personnel to
perform abatement projects, inspections, notifications and air
testing.  They also covered recordkeeping requirements,
obligations for both new and renovated schools, proper management
of materials and how to avoid the top 10 AHERA violations.

"Norwell's leaders and employees continue to show their commitment
to reducing risk exposures and to control the town's insurance
costs by taking advantage of MIIA's outstanding loss control
training programs," said Jeff Helm, the town of Norwell's
insurance advisor.

AHERA mandates that all K-12 schools, including public, private,
charter and church affiliated, must conduct specific asbestos
inspection activities; keep asbestos-containing building materials
in good condition; and use properly trained and/or licensed people
to conduct any asbestos related work.  Upon completion of the
AHERA Awareness Training and other MIIA risk- and loss-prevention
programs, Norwell is eligible to receive insurance premium credits
through the MIIA Rewards Programs, reducing its property and
casualty insurance costs.

MIIA is the nonprofit, member-based insurance arm of the
Massachusetts Municipal Association insuring nearly 400 cities,
towns and other public entities in the state.  In fiscal 2012,
nearly 8,000 city and town employees participated in nearly 400
MIIA-sponsored technical trainings and management seminars offered
throughout the state.

Member municipalities' efforts yielded more than $2.6 million of
premium credit collectively through the MIIA Rewards incentive
program for a 10-year total of more than $17.3 million.

For more information, visit http://www.emiia.org/and
http://www.mma.org/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ozaukee County Cited for Breach of Abatement Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Behm of the Journal Sentinel reports that Ozaukee County has
paid $4,665 in fines to the state Department of Justice to resolve
two citations for violating state asbestos removal regulations,
county officials said Thursday, Dec. 13.

The county failed to notify the state Department of Natural
Resources last year that it would be demolishing eight buildings
at the county fairgrounds off Washington Ave. in Cedarburg,
according to one citation issued May 23 by DNR environmental
Warden Christopher Shea.

In a citation issued on May 22 of this year, Shea says the county
failed to inspect each of the buildings for asbestos before
demolition work began.

The buildings were removed between August and December 2011, the
citations say.  Shea interviewed county officials and reviewed
demolition records in February after the county asked to submit an
after-the-fact notification of the work.

On Wednesday, Dec. 12, the county pleaded no contest to the two
violations in Ozaukee County Circuit Court, Corporation Counsel
Rhonda Gorden said.

"Rather than contest the two citations in a court trial, the
county pleaded no contest," she said.

Both violations were first offenses for the county, according to
court records.

Court Commissioner Barry Boline found the county guilty of the
violations and imposed the fines.  The county paid $2,332.50 on
each citation.

Both the notification and pre-demolition inspection are required
under state environmental regulations, and the only exception is
the demolition of one single-family home on its own, DNR asbestos
coordinator Mark Davis said.

If insulation or other asbestos-containing building material is
found in the inspection, it must be removed before demolition
under state regulations.

Asbestos fibers are a known human carcinogen.  Exposure to
asbestos can result in lung cancer; mesothelioma, a cancer of the
chest cavity lining; and asbestosis, a scarring of lung tissue.

The eight buildings were removed to make space for the expansion
of the 4-H Youth Building and the construction of the multipurpose
building on the north end of the fairgrounds, Highway Commissioner
Robert Dreblow said.

The Fair Board accepted bids from companies and organizations for
the disassembly and removal of the buildings, Dreblow said.

After the initial work was done, Dreblow's crews were sent in to
finish removing remaining structures and concrete slabs.

At the site of a former exhibition building, the successful bidder
left behind a portion of the structure, and it contained
insulation, Dreblow said.  The county tested the insulation and
determined it did not contain asbestos.

Even though the test was negative for asbestos, it was done too
late, Dreblow said Thursday, Dec. 13.

"We violated the procedures and we were fined," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies Choose State Payout Over Court Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Pippos for The Advocate (AUS) reports that 17 asbestos
victims such as former Goliath Cement workers have received almost
AUD6 million in compensation under the relatively new state
scheme, but one applicant recently died before being assessed.

Of these, 12 were deemed to have an "imminently fatal" asbestos-
related disease.

The state government was recently updated on its Asbestos Disease
Compensation Scheme, which was launched last year.

            Union Fears Asbestos Report Will Be Hidden

Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation chief executive Susan Wallace
said almost $6 million had been paid up until October 31.

Of the successful applicants:

-- Twelve were deemed "imminently fatal" and suffering from either
mesothelioma, lung cancer or other rare cancers.

-- Five were assessed as having a "non-imminent fatal disease",
being most likely asbestosis.

Of the total 45 applications to date:

-- One was withdrawn because of an existing common law case
settlement in Victoria.

-- One could not be assessed because the applicant passed away.

-- Three were not successful.

-- Eleven are still being assessed.

-- Three were incomplete.

-- Nine applicants had an impairment "below the 10 per cent
threshold".

                 Asbestos Rears Its Toxic Head

Ms. Wallace said the 17 successful applicants were workers from
companies such as the then Goliath Cement, at Railton, paper
manufacturers, which could have included the mill at Burnie,
mechanics, heavy industry and the roofing industry.

Ms. Wallace said more asbestos victims were now choosing to apply
for compensation through the scheme rather than pursue a civil
claim in the courts.

"Traditionally Cement Australia had a habit of settling out of
court so it was very difficult to give accurate figures on how
many people they were compensating," Ms. Wallace said.

"People still have a choice to go through common law."

More than 50 victims of asbestos and respiratory illness linked to
the Railton factory have settled compensation cases.

Ms. Wallace said victims who were compensated through the state
scheme could still pursue civil action if they deemed the
compensation unreasonable, requiring them then to repay the
government the state money.

However, as was already evident, it was unlikely the courts in
Tasmania would pay more than the state scheme, Ms. Wallace said.

For example, Disease Tasmania founding member and ex-Goliath
Cement worker Laurie Appleby, of Beulah, was left with only
AUD18,000 (a total AUD55,000 payout) in court- approved
compensation several years ago after deducting medical and legal
fees.

Ms. Wallace said medical expenses were "uncapped" under the state
scheme.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texans Oppose Anti-Double-Dipping Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Tennissen of The Southeast Texas Record reports that the
Ohio House of Representatives have passed legislation designed to
stop the practice of "double-dipping" in asbestos litigation.

In asbestos litigation, a plaintiff can receive compensation from
the defendant, bankruptcy trust funds or both.

Supporters of the Ohio legislation have said it will stop double-
dipping by not allowing people to go after money from trusts of
bankrupted companies created to compensate asbestos victims as
well as filing lawsuits against current businesses.

Texas is one of a handful other states, including West Virginia,
Louisiana and Oklahoma, that are also working on similar
legislation.

In March 2011, State Rep. Doug Miller (R-New Braunfels) filed
House Bill 2034, which would mandate that claimants apply for
bankruptcy trust payments before going to trial against solvent
defendants.

The bill closes a loophole used by trial lawyers and would stop
them from gaming the legal system to enrich themselves at the
expense of asbestos victims, Miller said in a March 2, 2011, story
reported by the Texas Civil Justice League.

Most trial lawyers filing asbestos lawsuits in Texas don't file
claims with the bankruptcy trusts until after the litigation has
concluded, according to Miller, and that practice avoids
settlement credits and maximizes damages against solvent
defendants.

H.B. 2034 provides for simultaneous filing of trust claims and
tort suits with a deadline of filing trust claims 90 days before
trial.

"The legal system was designed to make victims whole, not to allow
them to collect twice for the same injury," said Lee Parsley,
president and general counsel of the Texas Civil Justice League.

At the end of the legislative session however, HB 2034 was left
pending in committee.

Another Texan is working on reform legislation on the national
level.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-21), chair of the House Committee on the
Judiciary, submitted House Resolution 4369, the Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2012 (FACT Act).

The FACT Act would require asbestos trusts to file quarterly
reports to the bankruptcy court describing each demand the trust
received from a claimant, including the name and exposure history
of the claimant and any basis for payments from the trust to the
claimant.

The bill was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Benjamin Quail of Arizona and
co-sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Tim Griffin of
Arizona, Jim Matheson of Utah, Dennis Ross of Florida and James
Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin.

According to Smith's bill summary, dissenters claim the reporting
and disclosure requirements of FACT are "an assault" against
asbestos victims' privacy.

They also say the bill would be inequitable because it requires
disclosure by trusts, but does not require solvent defendant
companies to disclose their confidential settlement agreements.

Those opposed to the bill claim there is no evidence of systemic
fraud with asbestos trusts and say the bill will actually decrease
compensation to asbestos victims by forcing the bankruptcy trusts
to prepare "burdensome" reports.

Despite the dissents, on June 8 the Judiciary Committee met in
open session and after a 15-14 vote, ordered H.R. 4369 to be
reported favorably to the House.  On Sept. 21, the legislation was
placed on the Union calendar, which is a calendar used by the
whole House to schedule bills involving money issues.

The Ohio bill, having already passed the Senate, now awaits the
signature of Gov. John Kasich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apex Sues Insurer for Breach of Coverage Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that a
corporation has filed suit against the insurance company that it
claims refuses to defend it in an asbestos lawsuit.

Apex Oil Company claims Mary M. Krohn filed an asbestos lawsuit
against plaintiff Apex on Aug. 4, 2010, in Madison County Circuit
Court.  She filed the lawsuit on behalf of her recently deceased
husband, Richard A. Krohn, who had worked for Clark (Oil) from
1957 until 1996.

Later, Apex bought Clark.  Mary Krohn named Apex as a defendant in
her asbestos lawsuit, saying the company is liable for her
husband's damages, according to the current complaint filed Dec. 3
in Madison County Circuit Court.

In turn, Apex requested that Arrowhead pay for the defense costs
it incurred in defending Krohn's lawsuit, the suit states.
Arrowhead had issued workers' compensation insurance to Clark at
the time that Richard Krohn worked for the company, the complaint
says.

"As Clark was an insured under the policies set forth...and the
Krohn suit was within the coverage provisions of the
aforementioned policies, Arrowhead had a duty to defend and
indemnify Apex under the Workers' Compensation Insurance
Policies," the suit states.

However, Arrowhead has refused to pay Apex's defense costs, it
claims.

In its complaint, Apex is seeking an award for the amounts it
incurred in defending itself against the Krohn lawsuit, plus
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and other
relief the court deems just.

William J. Knapp and Heather Mueller-Jones of Knapp, Ohl and Green
in Edwardsville will represent Apex.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-1962.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Clarifies Alleged Court Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Piet Van Zyl for The New Age (South Africa) writes that the
trustees of the Asbestos Relief Trust (ART) were alarmed to read
in The New Age on Oct. 19, 2012, that the trust had allegedly been
the subject of a court action resulting in an order that it move
its offices from Johannesburg to Kuruman and that two additional
community representatives should be appointed to the board of
trustees.

The article was apparently based on an interview with the deputy
minister of mineral resources.  Had the reporter approached the
ART, it would have pointed out that there was no court
application, hearing or order against the trust.  The facts are
that:

     -- A community group that has not been able to provide
verification of who they claim to represent has been making claims
against the trust for many years.

     -- The trustees have made numerous attempts to explain to the
community group why not all claimants qualify for benefits in
terms of the trust deed.  Representatives of the local, provincial
and central governments have been party to these engagements.

     -- More recently, the community group persuaded the premier
of the Northern Cape and the deputy minister for mineral resources
to give them a hearing.

     -- This resulted in the Master of the High Court calling a
meeting with the trustees, where the complaints of the group were
tabled.

     -- Subsequent to the meeting, the master has sought
information from the ART, which it will provide in full.
Accordingly, the first batch of this information has already been
provided to the master.

     -- The master declared that there was no conceivable basis
for the trustees to make ex-gratia payments to the community
group.

ART considers it appropriate to clarify the position in respect of
the purpose and objectives of the trust in order to prevent
further misunderstanding and misinformation.

The trust was established in March 2003, following an out of court
settlement, with the primary objective of providing compensation
-- as fully, fairly and effectively as it's means allow -- to
qualifying claimants who are suffering from an asbestos related
disease (ARD), more specifically asbestosis, asbestos-related lung
cancer and mesothelioma.

The trust provides compensation to qualifying claimants who were
occupationally or environmentally exposed to asbestos from
qualifying operations.  As set out in the trust deed, a claimant
must:

     -- Have been exposed to asbestos at a qualifying operation,
that is direct or indirect subsidiaries of and/or companies
associated with the founders of the trust, Gencor Limited, The
Griqualand Exploration and Finance Company and Msauli Asbes Beperk
(The trust therefore does not cover all asbestos operations in
South Africa and is prohibited by the trust deed from offering
compensation to sufferers who may have contracted an ARD
elsewhere); and

     -- Must have developed a compensable ARD.  In order to
determine whether a potential claimant has a compensable ARD the
trust appointed an independent panel of occupational medicine
specialists to assess each person?s medical records.

This panel comprises some of South Africa's leading experts in the
occupational medicine field.

The claims process is open to all persons who believe that they
meet the criteria to qualify for compensation and is free,
including first-time medical examinations that potential
occupational claimants must undergo to determine whether they have
a compensable ARD.

Although ART continues to search for those who qualify, it
believes that to date most of the potential beneficiaries of the
trust who reside in South Africa and in neighboring states have
been made aware of the trust.

Out of some 14500 individuals who have applied, R244.8 million has
to date been paid to 3610 qualifying claimants.

Because of the long latency period for asbestos-related diseases
to manifest, the trust deed requires the trust to meet claims
until 2028.  As at Sept. 30, 2012, the trust retained R301
million, inclusive of investment income, to provide for the
estimated number of future claims based on actuarial projections
and the evidence provided by medical authorities.

It is important to point out that even if a claimant does not have
a compensable ARD when he/she first applies to the trust, he/she
may lodge a further claim if they develop an ARD or a more severe
form of the disease at a later stage.

It is the primary responsibility of the trust to serve the
interests of the qualifying individuals, who face the prospect of
being very ill and to ensure that the monies are managed
appropriately in order that they are, in fact, available to the
qualifying individuals who require this money.

Piet Van Zyl is the chairperson of the Asbestos Relief Trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tons of Toxic Fibro Dumped in Central Sydney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Silmalis of The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) reports that
police were forced to close a lane in Ultimo in central Sydney on
Dec. 15, to allow specialist Sydney City Council contractors to
remove two tons of illegally dumped asbestos.

Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) crews and a HAZMAT team arrived at
Wattle Lane, Ultimo, on Friday night (Dec. 14) before specialist
officers from Sydney City Council moved in on Dec. 15 to clean up
the dangerous material.

Two childcare centers are located meters from Wattle Lane: the KU
Wattle Lane Children's Centre and the Magic Pudding centre on
McKee St.

It was expected the clean-up could take up to two days with crews
having to work slowly so as not to break up the material, which
could send the asbestos fibers airborne.

A Sydney City Council spokesman said the council's contractors
were working closely with the NSW Environment Protection Authority
to clean up the material and identify who dumped it.

"At this stage it's unclear where the asbestos came from or who
was responsible for its illegal dumping," he said.

"It is around two tons of material.  We are hopeful it will all be
removed by Monday (Dec. 17)."

FRNSW Inspector Chris Sedgwick said crews were concerned fibers
could blow away.

"We covered it with black plastic and then sand," he said.

The laneway, between Macarthur St and Mary Ann St, is just two
blocks from the city's waste management depot.

Sydney City Council has been calling for the removal of a state
government waste levy from the disposal of asbestos, amid claims
it contributes to illegal dumping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Soil Shipment to Port Kembla Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Paver of The Illawarra Mercury (Aus) reports that
contaminated soil shipped to Port Kembla from Sydney's Barangaroo
development site will be trucked out of the region and further
shipments abandoned.

Lend Lease struck a controversial deal with the port's management
earlier this year to ship up to 600,000 tons of soil from the
Sydney site for use in land reclamation at Port Kembla.

But the deal came unstuck in August when the first load was found
to contain pieces of asbestos, despite "rigorous testing" and
assurances it would be safe.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority quickly revoked Lend
Lease's permission to ship the soil and ordered that the stockpile
at Port Kembla be kept wet and the air monitored.

On Dec. 14, the environmental watchdog confirmed there would be no
more shipments and the company had not applied for a second
resource recovery exemption.

An EPA spokeswoman said it had been Lend Lease's decision.

"Lend Lease is currently investigating a number of options to
remove and dispose of the material that is currently on site."

A spokesman for the company confirmed it had not applied for a new
approval to ship the soil.

"The material stockpiled at Port Kembla will be removed from the
site via truck to an approved landfill site in the new year," he
said.

The landfill site will not be in the Illawarra.

The spokesman also said no airborne asbestos had been identified
when the material was taken to Port Kembla, and the company had
worked closely with the EPA and port management to address the
issue.

It is understood the material, which was being excavated from
Barangaroo South to make way for building works, is now being
trucked to registered landfill sites elsewhere.

Port Kembla Port Corporation chief executive officer Dom
Figliomeni said the port would need to source fill for the outer
harbor expansion from elsewhere.

"It always has been the port's objective that the material must be
environmentally suitable for placement in our reclamation," he
said.

Mr. Figliomeni said he had not been formally notified that no
future shipments would occur, but understood that to be the case
from discussions with the company.

It was Lend Lease's responsibility to remove material already at
Port Kembla and the company would need to work with the EPA to
decide on an acceptable method and where to dispose of it, he
said.

South Coast Labour Council secretary Arthur Rorris said stopping
shipments and removing the soil was the "right call".

The labor council endorsed bans on unloading or handling the fill
after the asbestos was found.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Revives Dormant Cases of 13,000+ Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Duncan of The Baltimore Sun reports that a Baltimore judge on
Monday, Dec. 17, was scheduled to hear an ambitious plan to revive
the long dormant cases of more than 13,000 people who say they
have been sickened by asbestos, an attempt by the Law Offices of
Peter G. Angelos to return to a strategy that made a fortune for
its founder.

In the early 1990s, the city established a two-tiered system to
deal with an overwhelming amount of asbestos suits, prioritizing
the cases of the sickest people while delaying trial for people
who claimed to have been exposed, but had no symptoms.  The
Angelos firm says there are many people who have since become ill
but now have no real chance of getting their cases through
congested courts.

In a court memo, opposing lawyers in the case called the plan "a
backdoor attempt" to undermine a system that works and has been
widely adopted by courts across the country.  Opponents say the
firm is trying to bully potential defendants into settling in weak
cases.

The proposal would revive an approach in which the Baltimore
Circuit Court would consider a large volume of cases at one time,
using a few examples to establish broad links between asbestos and
health problems.  That would clear the plaintiffs to sue for
damages in groups based on the circumstances of their cases.

"We've done it before and it's been successful before and we need
to do it now because we have all these cases that need
resolution," said Theodore M. Flerlage, one of the Angelos
attorneys involved in the case.  "There are lot of people who have
been waiting a long time and are sick now and need their day in
court."

The firm won settlements of more than $1 billion in asbestos suits
in 1992 alone.

The Angelos plan does not name specific defendants, but they would
likely include manufacturers, suppliers and contractors who
produced and worked with asbestos, Flerlage said.  The plaintiffs
were all exposed in Maryland, he added.  Asbestos, used throughout
the 20th century in insulation and building materials, has been
linked to many types of cancer and lung diseases.

Business groups and possible defendants argue that the strategy
would violate their rights to a fair hearing.

"It is extremely concerning to see a movement by the Angelos firm
to turn back the clock to an outdated and discredited method of
asbestos litigation," said Harold Kim, executive vice president of
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a group opposing the
Angelos plan.

"There's a very high likelihood that a lot of these people aren't
sick and their claims are supported by discredited doctors."

Kim said that trying to rush cases through as Angelos is proposing
will allow diagnoses based on the opinions of dodgy doctors to
slip through the cracks.

"It's basically an attempt to force large settlements," he added.
"You flood the system with complaints and you try to leverage
settlements."

Kim pointed to an investigation that started in a Texas federal
court and showed that doctors had questionably diagnosed thousands
of patients with asbestos related illnesses.  Misconduct could go
undiscovered if defendants are pressured into settling, Kim said.

Flerlage said he's not aware of any of his clients having been
diagnosed by a doctor who has been shown to have made improper
diagnoses.

"As far as I know, at least involving this firm, this issue has
not come up," he said, and added that plaintiffs would still need
to show that they were sick as a result of asbestos exposure.

In court filings, defense attorneys also criticized the Angelos
plan as too vague, arguing that his firm should name plaintiffs
and defendants.  A memo outlining the plan only says it would
apply to people with a range of cancers and other illnesses -- but
not mesothelioma, a type of cancer closely associated with
asbestos exposure.

Flerlage declined to make any of the plaintiffs available for
interview, citing the ongoing litigation.

John M. Glynn, a retired judge who runs the city's asbestos docket
and scheduled to preside at the Dec. 17 hearing, said in an
interview that Angelos' firm probably wants to bunch the cases
together because they typically pay out less and might not be
worth pursuing individually.

"I'm sure from the plaintiffs' perspective it would be more
desirable if you could settle them in one group," he added.

In the early 1990s, Angelos' firm handled two big sets of asbestos
cases, bringing in large payouts for many of the clients, and for
Angelos -- who used some of the proceeds to buy the Baltimore
Orioles.  He personally took in about $9 million in 1994, for
example, according to a Forbes magazine analysis at the time.

But in the face of an overwhelming number of new asbestos filings
-- Baltimore's shipyards and steel mills exposed thousands of
people to asbestos -- the court set up an inactive docket where
people who were not sick could wait.  Other cities followed suit
and large, so-called "consolidated" cases became rarer.

Glynn said the courts handle a small number of cases from the
inactive docket each month and one or two a year go to trial.  In
a court filing, Angelos' team argued that the mass trials wrapped
up cases in less than a decade that would have taken 35 years
under normal conditions.

His firm wrote that the courts should return to that model to
handle the volume of litigation and use 15 test cases to get
verdicts that could be used to speed through others by
establishing, for example, how asbestos causes the types of cancer
the plaintiffs have.

But potential defendants in the cases question whether the Angelos
plan would actually see more cases resolved, and argue that it
could serve to gum up the works even further.

"It will not yield any great results apart from bringing the civil
docket in Baltimore to a halt," said Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr.,
a former city solicitor now representing Union Carbide, a
potential defendant in some of the cases.

For his part, Glynn is clear-eyed about his role: He must decide
whether the Angelos plan is better than the system now in place.

"You've got to be fair and you've got to be efficient, and
balancing those two factors is ultimately my job," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PAR Applies for 10-Ton HazMat Transfer Station
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Youle of The South Wales Evening Post reports that an
asbestos waste transfer station will be built in Gorseinon, if the
authorities give it the all clear.

Phoenix Asbestos Recovery Ltd (PAR) wants to store up to 10 tons
of the material at a unit at Garngoch Industrial Estate, off
Gorseinon Road.

Based at Swansea Enterprise Park, its clients include airlines,
the NHS and housing authorities, and it employs 24 staff.

A statement submitted as part of its planning application to
Swansea Council said the company removed asbestos from a variety
of premises.

"Where a job involves the removal of large quantities of asbestos,
PAR stores the waste asbestos on site in enclosed, lockable waste
containers, prior to transferring the containers to a suitable
permitted landfill site," it said.

"However, PAR is increasingly being requested to undertake smaller
asbestos removal jobs, such as the removal of kitchen floor tiles,
asbestos cement roofs and household boilers (the types and
quantities of asbestos normally accepted at household waste
recycling sites).

"For this amount of waste it is not economically and often not
physically viable to bring a container to site.  Accordingly, PAR
is seeking to develop a waste transfer station to store the
asbestos waste created by these smaller removal jobs prior to the
waste being transported to a suitably permitted landfill site."

The statement added: "The proposed development involves the
storage of up to 10 tons of asbestos waste prior to its
transportation for disposal.

"The waste is already suitably wrapped before arrival at site and,
while on site, will be stored in sealed containers within the
proposed building."

It is expected that the site will operate under an Environment
Agency permit and will not accept asbestos powders, loose fibers
or any form of liquids.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that has been used in
building materials to make them rigid and fire resistant.  Any
building built before 2000 can contain asbestos.

Such materials in good condition are safe unless fibers become
airborne when the materials are damaged.

Working on or near damaged asbestos-containing materials or
breathing in high levels of asbestos fibers can cause lung
disease.

PAR's application is due to be discussed by Gorseinon Town Council
on January 2.

Swansea councillor David Lewis -- ward member for the area -- has
called the application in and requested a site visit.  "I would
encourage members of the public to let their views be known
through the usual channels at the council," said Mr. Lewis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Lodge Refurbishments Project Put on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Gillard has a history of rotten luck with renovations, and
it seems to be continuing, reports Dan Harrison of The Sydney
Morning Herald.

Ms. Gillard, whose dissatisfaction with the workmanship of Bill,
"a big Greek bullshit artist," was revealed through reporting this
year of her involvement in the AWU affair, has just learned that
long-planned work on her official Canberra residence will be put
off until late next year.

In a 1995 interview with a senior partner and general manager of
the law firm Slater and Gordon, Ms. Gillard detailed her
frustration with Bill -- a union organizer from Western Australia
whose real name was Vassilis Telikostoglou -- who failed to
complete the tiling of the veranda of her Abbottsford house,
defied her instructions by installing aluminum sliding windows and
taking the initiative of erecting a "truly hideous" low brick
fence.

It's not known how she reacted to the letter from Special Minister
of State Gary Gray advising her that the refurbishment project,
which was to start in April, will be put off until the end of
2013, because initial investigations revealed the work was likely
to run into "significant technical challenges".

"Research and investigations conducted by the architects and the
age and condition of the building mean that the refurbishment and
conservation works are likely to encounter significant technical
challenges," Mr. Gray said in a statement.

"Subsequently, it has become apparent that the refurbishment
project will take longer to complete than originally anticipated."

"It is important to preserve the iconic heritage values of The
Lodge for future generations.  However, the health and safety of
residents, visitors and staff is paramount."

"I have decided the sensible and practical thing to do is to defer
these renovations," he said.

The planned works include replacement of the slate tile roof and
1920s cotton-covered electrical wiring, the removal of potentially
hazardous asbestos and the repair of leaky and rusty plumbing.

Mr. Gray said he had also written to opposition leader Tony Abbott
to advise him of his decision to defer the work.

The Lodge has been the primary official home of Prime Ministers
since 1927.  It is regularly used to host Australian and foreign
dignitaries as well as charity functions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northfield Depot Group Gets $7,000 Abatement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Walsh of The Northfield News reports that The Northfield
Area Foundation recently awarded a $7,000 grant to the Save the
Northfield Depot group to help get rid of asbestos in the depot
building, a necessary step to move it and integrate it into a
transit hub project.

NAF Chair Dale Ness confirmed Monday, Dec. 17, that the group
allocated the money to the depot group, which was one grant among
$55,000 worth of grants that the foundation gave away this year to
local groups.

Ness said that the foundation was able to move forward with the
grant after the Northfield City Council's Dec. 4 action to pursue
the development of the transit hub project at the Q-block site,
west of Hwy. 3 between West Second and West Third streets.

"We didn't just want the asbestos to be taken off, and then the
depot just sitting there," Ness said.  "It's really a project we'd
love to see happen and support."

He said that the foundation gave the depot group some money last
year as well.

Rob Martin, a member of the Save the Northfield Depot committee,
said the NAF gave more than $3,000 to have the land surveyed,
which the city sold to the group.

He said the cost to remove the asbestos will probably be more than
this year's $7,000 grant.

"We're really grateful that the Northfield Area Foundation
recognized that we had a need and that they were sympathetic to
our cause," Martin said.

He said the group has an agreement with the city, which stipulates
that it raises about $293,000 in three years to contribute to the
transit hub project that would relocate the depot and install it
at the Q-block site.

As co-chair, Martin said he would like Save the Northfield Depot
to raise between $100,000 and $150,000 by next summer, which could
be accrued through home parties, door-to-door solicitation,
various grants and a telethon that the group plans to have in
spring 2013.

"There are citizens in the community that support our effort for
various reason," Martin said.  "Many of them are concerned about
losing a piece of history.  There are a number of people that
recognize the need for a transit station or a welcoming point for
people coming into the community."

A certified asbestos inspector found asbestos in the depot during
an inspection last year, according to an online post by the Save
the Northfield Depot on its website.  The state requires that the
asbestos be cleaned up, which a certified professional must
complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Face $11BB Loss to Fibro-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center, a new
report issued by ratings firm A.M. Best indicates that U.S.
insurers can expect to pay an additional $11 billion in asbestos-
related insurance claims above and beyond the $23 billion already
set aside for future expenses.  The same report shows that the
industry has already paid out some $53 billion for such claims
during the last quarter-century.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, A.M. Best indicated in
their report that the rise in costs can be attributed to the
increasing cost of each claim, the success rate of experienced
mesothelioma attorneys, and the long latency period of diseases
such as malignant mesothelioma.  All of this means that "sizable
losses are likely to continue for years," according to the study
results released recently.

Some of the insurers who have seen significant asbestos claims
throughout the last few decades include Travelers, Hartford
Financial Services Group, Berkshire Hathaway, CNA Financial Group,
and Lloyd's of London.  Dozens of others have been hit with
smaller claims.

Many asbestos diseases, including both asbestosis and
mesothelioma, can take anywhere from two to five decades to
develop and become evident.  Hence, asbestos lawsuits are still
being filed more than 30 years after the government imposed rules
about the use of the toxic material.  Therefore, insurers are
still paying out on policies they sold as much as 50 years ago,
when asbestos was widely used in all sorts of products and in many
industries.  Mechanics, machinists, insulators, plumbers,
electricians, and a wide variety of other tradesmen may have
suffered asbestos exposure on the job during those years.

A.M. Best analyst Gerard Altonji said: "Given the long latency
period between exposure to asbestos and the manifestation of
mesothelioma, as well as the very large number of people exposed
over a great many years...it is likely that asbestos losses will
continue to develop for many years to come."

Though the additional $11 billion is not enough to cripple the
industry, Altonji and his colleagues add, investors with the
various insurance companies involved have reacted negatively when
an insurer announces additions to its asbestos reserves.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staffordshire Council Fined for Health Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Express & Star reports that the Staffordshire County Council
has been handed a court bill of GBP15,000 after admitting
liability when dangerous asbestos fibers were released into the
nursery of a primary school in Cheslyn Hay.

Glenthorne Primary School was shut for three months while
decontamination took place in 2009.  An investigation by the
Health and Safety Executive revealed shortcomings in dealing with
asbestos both by the council and its contractors, Rugeley-based G
Evans (Services) Ltd.

The firm was fined GBP8,000 and ordered to pay GBP4,000 costs at
Stafford Crown Court.

The firm, in Wheelhouse Road, admitted failing to ensure the
safety of persons not in its employment and the safety of persons
in employment.

The council, which admitted failing to ensure the safety of
persons not in its employment, was fined GBP10,000 and ordered to
pay GBP5,000 costs.

Judge Mark Eades heard on Friday, Dec. 14, that the main people at
risk from the asbestos were two workers from the firm.  Risks to
teachers and children in the school at the time were "difficult"
to assess.

The court heard the exposure was brief and would not lead to any
serious lung problems like asbestosis or cancer.

It happened in February 2009 during the removal of a long wall
cupboard, which had to be sawn in half.

The work revealed a foil-lined backing board, which was wrongly
identified as non-hazardous insulation material and put in a skip.

Mr. Bernard Thorogood, representing the council, said the
refurbishment of the nursery was a late addition to the work at
the school and the authority accepted responsibility for the
failing of a very senior employee.

Mr. Stephen Cadwaladr, for the company, said only a small piece of
asbestos had been sawn by hand and very few fibers had been
released.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Stirs Up Fibro at North Bend Airport
----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for The Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that an
early morning fire that occurred on Dec. 4 at the Southwest Oregon
Regional Airport in North Bend may have caused the circulation of
some airborne asbestos fibers, reports a story in The World.

According to the article, in the days before the fire, crews had
been removing asbestos materials from the 70-year-old airport
hangar but hadn't quite gotten all of it.  Hence, when the fire
occurred, there was still some asbestos cement on the premises.
Authorities believe, however, that crews from the Department of
Environmental Quality and Koos Environmental were able to act
swiftly enough to avoid any major issues.

At this point, neighbors of the airport have nothing to fear, said
DEQ Natural Resource Specialist Martin Abts.  He noted that clean-
up crews were sent in while the ashes were still smoldering and
managed to remove 200 bags of asbestos material from the premises.

Abts did admit, however, that asbestos fibers may have been
released during the fire, when the heat from the flames caused
pieces of the cement to break loose and fly away.  But he believes
that rain and heavy winds would have kept exposure to a minimum,
including for firefighters and neighbors of the airport.

"In my professional opinion," Abt said, "I'd say their exposure
was little to none."

It is believed that the fire was caused by the negligence of the
demolition crew, who may have been smoking in the hangar or
storing equipment there that may have sparked the blaze.  Cleaning
continues at the site.

Firefighters such as those that fought this blaze in North Bend
often find themselves in situations where asbestos exposure could
potentially be an issue.  Properties constructed prior to the mid
1970s -- residential, commercial, and industrial -- may contain a
variety of asbestos materials as the mineral was once used in
literally thousands of building materials including everything
from insulation to paint to shingles and siding.  Firefighters
should always take the proper precautions when extinguishing fires
in locations where asbestos may be present.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Sandy Rebuilders Warned of Hidden Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
MaryAnn Spoto of The Star-Ledger reports that as residents and
business owners start to rebuild after Hurricane Sandy, state and
federal officials are trying to get one message out loud and
clear: Beware of hidden health hazards.

At a forum Monday, Dec. 17, to discuss the health impacts the
storm can have on New Jerseyans, the representatives said mold,
asbestos and lead paint are of particular concern because of all
the do-it-yourselfers who don't know what they're doing.

"These are issues that can affect workers, residents that are
living in homes and tenants, and also volunteers who are
graciously donating their time and their energy to clean up their
communities," said Judith Enck, regional administrator for the
federal Environmental Protection Agency.  "We want to make sure
that as the cleanup is occurring that there are not problems with
exposure to mold, exposure to lead, exposure to asbestos."

Exposure to mold can cause respiratory problems, particularly
among those who do not wear the appropriate attire when removing
moldy wall board.

Enck was one of six panelists who addressed a crowd of about 100
at the Wall Township headquarters of the Local Union 400 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is starting to
fine contractors whose failure to adhere to safety regulations
puts workers at risk of health dangers, said Robert Kulick,
regional administrator for the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration..

Kulick said OSHA is enforcing regulations aimed at preventing the
four leading causes of fatalities after hurricanes: falling from
high elevations, being electrocuted, being struck by objects and
being caught between objects, such as heavy equipment.

"Right now we are looking for those four hazards throughout the
impacted areas of New Jersey, New York and Long Island," Kulick
said.  "We are intervening and we're removing employees from risk,
and when appropriate, we're issuing citations and penalties to
employers who are not responsible and not doing what needs to be
done to protect their workers.

He said there have been 12 worker deaths -- three in New Jersey --
in the New York/New Jersey area.  All of the New Jersey cases were
workers who were crushed while taking down the remnants of fallen
trees, he said.

Cecelia Leto, project director for the New Jersey Work Environment
Council, said the forum was a chance to get a more coordinated
effort from federal and state agencies to get the health and
safety information directly to workers.

"We have a good reach but we're limited.  We can't get to the
front lines as good as we should," she said after the forum.

Rita Dentino, director of Casa Freehold, a Freehold-based advocacy
group for immigrants, told the panelists she's seen many poor
residents living in their mold-infested homes.

From the flyers found at these homes explaining the health risks
associated with storm cleanup, there's evidence word is trickling
down, but there still needs to be direct training, Dentino said.

"We want workers to be trained," she said.

They also caution that airborne mold can cause respiratory
problems and that many people are unknowingly using improper
safety attire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Brace Against Toxic Dust Storm
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Alix of The Motley Fool reports that this year had been
kind to property and casualty insurers, until Sandy blew into
town.  Governors from the hardest-hit states decided to categorize
the storm to maximize benefits to claimants, and Sandy's damages
have been estimated to top $20 billion.  Now, another threat to
insurers' profits has come to light, courtesy of insurance credit
rating agency AM Best: increased liability for asbestos-related
injury claims.

The Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. insurers Berkshire
Hathaway, Hartford Financial Group, and Travelers stand to bear
the brunt of the estimated asbestos cost increases, while AIG and
CNA Financial will probably suffer to a lesser extent.  The latter
two companies have Warren Buffett to thank for the decreased
liability:  The great investor bought AIG's asbestos liability
last year for $1.65 billion, and CNA's risk for $2 billion in
2010.

How much more will insurers have to shell out?  AM Best estimates
that an extra $11 billion is in the cards.  Insurers have paid
claims totaling more than $50 billion, with another $23 waiting in
the wings.  The rating agency noted that bigger and increasingly
more successful claims are behind its new estimates.

Sandy is shaping up to be the next most expensive storm after
Katrina, and most insurance companies have announced the damage to
their respective bottom lines.  AIG, riding high since its
governmental apron strings were finally severed, said that its
losses will be around $1.3 billion after taxes, and Travelers
announced post-tax losses of $650 million.  The Hartford estimates
much lower net losses of $230 million, with CNA posting
catastrophe losses of $18 million for Q3, after taxes.  Things
could have been a lot worse, especially since the governors of New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut declared Sandy a tropical storm,
rather than a hurricane -- opening the door to many more claims
than if the latter classification had stuck.

Though these two issues represent a double whammy for the P&I
insurance industry, it is certainly survivable.  As far as Sandy
goes, the insurers had nice fat bank accounts from recent premium
increases, and the storm only gives the industry more ammunition
to raise them even more next year.

As unsettling as the ramped-up asbestos claim costs look, they
will be spread out over several years.  Both AIG and CNA are in
the catbird seat here, while Buffett's bet that claim expenses
wouldn't rise  hasn't paid off.  Still, the Oracle had the use of
those billions with which to make other investments, and this
extra hit is not likely to hurt his empire.  As for the others,
their stock price may take a dip for a while, presenting a nice
opportunity for savvy investors who know that this, too, shall
pass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Best Expects Insurance Losses to Top $85-Bil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter - Daily News reports A.M. Best Company, Inc.,
recently released a revised estimate of $85 billion, net of
reinsurance, in losses due to third-party liability asbestos
claims to the United States property and casualty insurance
industry.

Annual losses for both asbestos and environmental is now $127
billion, the Oldwick, N.J. credit rating agency stated in a
special report released Dec. 10.  All figures are in U.S.
currency.

The "net ultimate" asbestos losses for the U.S. property and
casualty insurance industry is now $10 billion more than the
previous estimate, A.M. Best says.

"The increase in the asbestos estimate reflects the fact that the
p&c industry continues to incur approximately $2.0 billion in
losses per year while paying out $2.5 billion," A.M. Best stated
in the report, released Dec. 10.  "With no end to these losses in
sight, and given that total funding for insurers' asbestos losses
now has reached $74 billion, it is clear that the asbestos problem
will persist for many years to come."

Those losses are mainly third-party liability claims, said Gerard
Altonji, assistant vice president for property casualty at A.M.
Best.

In an e-mail to Canadian Underwriter, he wrote that these claims
came from people who became sick sued corporations, such as
asbestos producers and manufacturers of products such as brake
linings and boiler linings.

He added the statistics in A.M. Best's report do not include
workers compensation claims, nor do they include Canadian
statistics.

According to Health Canada's website, asbestos fibers, when
inhaled, can cause asbestosis, which is a scarring of the lungs.
It can also cause lung cancer, cancer of the larynx and ovarian
cancer.

Another major hazard is mesothelioma.  According to the website of
Mount Pleasant, S.C. law firm Motley Rice, which has represented
asbestos claimants, mesothelioma is a cancer that affects the
mesothelial cells that line the lung, chest cavity, abdominal
cavity, heart cavity and the outer surface of most internal
organs.

A.M. Best says the average claims for mesothelioma "appear to be
increasing."

Although insurance asbestos losses dropped from $8 billion in 2002
to a little more than $1 billion in 2008, there has been a "focus
on obtaining higher judgements for the more serious cases
involving mesothelioma," A.M. Best said.

Annual losses for both asbestos and environmental claims dropped
30% in 2011 after increasing 50% each in 2009 and 2010, A.M. Best
said.  However, it attributed the drop in 2011 to American
International Group Inc. (AIG)'s loss in 2010, when it increased
its asbestos provisions by nearly $1.4 billion.

"One of the main problems with asbestos now comes from sprayed or
'friable' (easily broken up) asbestos used in buildings until the
1970s," Health Canada states on its website.  "Construction
workers, tradespeople and other building maintenance workers may
be exposed to very high concentrations of asbestos fibers during
renovations and repairs to older buildings.  The environment and
work methods of these occupations are more difficult to control
than fixed workplaces."

Health Canada says asbestos has been used in various construction
products including insulation board, floor and ceiling tiles and
drywall joint cement.

Workers affected by asbestos come from a variety of occupations,
according to Motley Rice, including aerospace, refinery,
automobile manufacturing, mechanics, cement plant workers,
custodians, protective clothing and glove makers and warehouse
workers.  Construction trades affected by asbestos include
boilermakers, insulators, plumbers, steamfitters, plasterers, tile
and linoleum installers, carpenters and welders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $20 Million Camp Roberts Demolition Plan Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports that there was so
much asbestos, lead-based paint and other contaminants throughout
the 658 abandoned buildings at Camp Roberts that the U.S. Army had
to create its own on-site hazardous waste landfill before the
demolition could begin.

That's a scary thought for the hundreds of thousands of military
veterans who once lived and worked there.

They marked the end of an era earlier this month at Camp Roberts,
the largest military training facility in California, when a $20
million demolition project began with considerable fanfare.

Many of the structures were abandoned long ago, and fell into
disrepair, becoming an eyesore along Highway 101 near San Miguel,
and to anyone venturing onto the base.

They were barracks, chapels, administrative offices, supply huts,
warehouses and mess halls that were built in the early 1940s, a
time when the American military was falling in love with
everything asbestos, which served as a wonderfully versatile
insulator and fire retardant.  It also was abundant and
economical.

Old Soldiers Exposed to Asbestos

Soldiers from the 1940s, '50, '60s, '70s and early '80s were
housed and trained there, unknowingly putting themselves at risk
for future health problems.  Asbestos is the cause of
mesothelioma, a rare cancer that has a latency period of up to 60
years before showing obvious symptoms.

Most have been empty for 30 years, waiting for the slow-moving,
military chain of command to finalize the orders and receive the
proper environmental approval to start the demolition.

"It's kind of different to think of all the people who went
through here," retired Col. John Scully told the San Luis Obispo
Tribune.  "There are a lot of memories."

Camp Roberts, which still was used for troops before deployment to
Iraq and Afghanistan in more recent years, has been modernized,
and is operated today by the California National Guard.

50,000 Called Camp Roberts Home

In its heyday, Camp Roberts was home to 50,000 soldiers preparing
for war.  Much of it was built in 1940 and 1941, in anticipation
of America being pulled into World War II.  But as the decades
progressed and the number of U.S. military troops decreased,
buildings were no longer used.

Many fell into disrepair.  Many today are dilapidated shells of
once bustling hubs of activity.  Insides have been gutted.
Outsides are weathered and worn.  Entire blocks are closed off to
everyone.

There were so many contaminants in the older construction that the
military discovered it would be less expensive to build a
hazardous waste landfill than to try and haul away everything.  It
exemplified the size of the problem that came with all the good
that Camp Roberts did.  This base was not alone.  Asbestos was
among the top contaminants at 32 Army installations in the United
States before they were close during the '90s, costing the
government an estimated $1 billion in cleanup.

"There's a lot of history here," Brig. General Keith Jones told
the Tribune.  "An old facility like this touched a lot of souls."

Veterans Hit Hard by Mesothelioma

Through the Korean and Vietnam eras, the older side of Camp
Roberts remained a busy place.  It was a time when Americans were
constructing houses and commercial buildings filled with asbestos.

Military personnel from those eras have been hit especially hard
by asbestos-related illnesses.  An estimated 30 percent of
mesothelioma cases diagnosed in America annually are veterans.

Older military bases throughout the country were notorious for
high concentrations of asbestos because military leaders believed
at the time it was the right thing to do, unaware of the long-term
dangers that were lurking.

In California, it's all coming down now, requiring extra care in
the demolition process to avoid spreading the contaminants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guernsey's Princess Elizabeth Hospital Abated
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Guernsey reports that asbestos has been removed from
Guernsey's Princess Elizabeth Hospital after being discovered in a
cupboard.

A statement from the Health Department said the brown asbestos,
known as Amosite, had been removed on Monday, Dec. 17.

It said a tiny amount of the material had been found in a corridor
next to the hospital's operating theatres.

The statement said: "At no time have any operating theatres been
closed and no staff or patients have been put at risk."

The department said the removal was being done in line with its
asbestos management program and the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) had been informed.

Asbestos was previously found and removed from the hospital's
plant rooms and service ducts ahead of a refurbishment in 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Webster Village Hall Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Murphy and Steve Orr of The Democrat and Chronicle report
that asbestos abatement began Tuesday, Dec. 18, at the Webster
Village Hall, which was closed to the public and employees after a
routine carpet replacement dislodged tiles containing the
dangerous fiber.

Village workers were pulling up carpet near the front of the
building Dec. 5 when large pieces of tile started coming up with
it, Mayor Peter Elder said Tuesday.  Apparently the adhesive
binding the carpet to the tile was stronger than the adhesive
binding the tile to the floor.

The village knew ahead of time it was possible there would be
asbestos in the tiles and had consulted with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Elder said, but believed the
carpet change would not disturb it.  Once it did, the workers
stopped and, after a call to EPA, were instructed to stop work,
Elder said.  Village employees left the building within 20
minutes, he said.

Village government workers moved to the back of the building,
which remains open.  The village is using about $25,000 from its
reserve fund for a full asbestos abatement in the front of the
building, ripping up the existing tiles and carpet and replacing
them.  That clean-up started Tuesday, Dec. 18, after the Village
Board reviewed abatement bids.

Air quality tests have come back clean, Elder said.  The village
offered the employees in the building at the time health
screenings but none took the offer, he said.

Several calls to the state Department of Labor, which oversees
asbestos abatement in New York and also provides health and safety
services to municipal employees, were not returned Tuesday
afternoon.  A call to the EPA also was not returned.

Inhalation of a sufficient quantity of asbestos fibers can impair
respiratory function and cause lung cancer and other serious lung
diseases.  Removal of building material containing asbestos, which
was widely used as an insulator and fire retardant, is normally
done by licensed contractors.

Elder said he was confident after talking with EPA officials that
the village would not face any fines or sanctions for disturbing
the asbestos.

"What we've been told is it's one of the lowest grade mitigations
we could do," he said.  "Once we realized there even could be an
issue, we stopped."

The abatement spending is in addition to the $17,000 originally
budgeted for the carpet replacement.

Village government will move back into the front part of the
building before the end of the month, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pleural Mesothelioma Kills Ex-Little Lever Worker
------------------------------------------------------------------
A man died from a cancer associated with working with asbestos, an
inquest heard.

John Devine, who died in September, was employed by a company
where asbestos was used from 1954 to 1980.

The Bolton inquest was told that in July Mr. Devine, aged 79, had
written a statement -- read out in court -- detailing his working
life in Little Lever where he was exposed to asbestos.

He said that although dust masks were provided for staff, they
were not warned of the dangers of breathing asbestos dust and
wearing the masks was not a requirement.

In May, Mr. Devine, of Bardsley Close, Harwood, was examined by
consultant chest physician Dr. Kamal Ibrahim and, following tests,
mesothelioma was diagnosed -- a cancer affecting the lungs and
associated with asbestos exposure.

Although Mr. Devine started chemotherapy, it had to be
discontinued when he became too unwell for the treatment and he
died on September 21 at Bolton Hospice.

Pathologist Dr. Patrick Waugh confirmed that Mr. Devine was
suffering from heart disease, but had died as a result of
malignant pleural mesothelioma and confirmed this would be
"undoubtedly" as a result of his expose to asbestos during his
working life.

Deputy coroner Alan Walsh said Mr. Devine had died as a result of
an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Relocates Paterson Recreation Division
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico of The Alternative Press reports that the
Paterson, N.J., recreation division has moved to a building in
East Side Park because renovations on its Ellison Street offices
resulted in an asbestos problem, according to Business
Administrator Charles Thomas.

City employees renovating the offices at 133 Ellison noticed the
asbestos dust during the work, Thomas said.  For their protection,
the recreation staff members were relocated to offices in the
park, he said.  Also relocated was the city's Neighborhood
Assistance Office, which moved back to its old location next door
at 125 Ellison.

Thomas said the asbestos would result in a "minimal" increase in
the cost of the renovations.  He said he expected the eight
employees affected by the work would be able to return to 133
Ellison after Christmas Day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulburn Mulwaree to Take in Yass Valley's Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that asbestos could be disposed of in a Goulburn
tip following a request from a neighboring council.

The Yass Valley Council has asked Goulburn Mulwaree to let it dump
the toxic material in a waste facility because it does not hold
the necessary license.

The asbestos has been removed from a fire damaged building.

The Mayor Geoff Kettle says the council has agreed to accept the
waste.

"You try to when you can look after your neighbors and help your
neighbors because you never know when you might be in the same
situation but we also realize that there would be an impact on our
tip," he said.

"So we negotiated on a commercial basis to take that waste from
Yass and we're still waiting to find out whether they're going to
bring it to us."

The Goulburn community is being assured there is no risk to public
safety.

Councillor Kettle says all necessary precautions will be taken.

"Look I would suggest no and that would be up to Yass Valley
Council to make sure it is transported appropriately.

"Once it gets to our landfill our employees are fully versed and
fully qualified to handle that sort of waste.

"They know the safety aspects of having to handle it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Paper Mill, 30 Others Face Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that
George Norris filed an asbestos lawsuit in St. Clair County
Circuit Court on Nov. 20 against 31 defendant corporations.

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

In his complaint, Norris alleges the defendant companies caused
him to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-
containing products throughout his career.  Norris lives in North
Carolina.

Norris worked as a welder at Federal Paper Mill from 1956 until
1988, according to the complaint.

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

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

In his complaint, Norris is seeking a judgment of more than
$50,000, economic damages of more than $150,000, compensatory
damages of more than $150,000, punitive and exemplary damages of
more than $100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to
punish various defendants for their wrongdoing.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-626.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 64 Pembrokeshire Schools Contaminated
------------------------------------------------------
The Western Telegraph News reports that 64 of Pembrokeshire's 70
schools contain some asbestos -- but Pembrokeshire County Council
will not currently say which schools they are.

The figure was revealed following a question from county
councillor David Bryan, prompted by the recent closure of Cwmcarn
High School, in Caerphilly, due to asbestos.

Pembrokeshire County Council's cabinet member for education, Huw
George, told councillors at the meeting of full council last
Thursday, Dec. 13, that the Health and Safety Executive
recommended that asbestos products should be left in place,
providing they were in good condition, and should be subsequently
managed.

He said that the schools' premises managers had a duty to ensure
that all staff and visitors to the school were given information
regarding the asbestos management procedure.

He added that the council had robust systems in place for the
management and regulation of asbestos containing material in all
Pembrokeshire schools.

Cllr George said he was disinclined to name the schools containing
asbestos.

"I'm concerned about scaremongering", he said.

"Im reluctant to go public on which schools.  Levels of asbestos
are different from school to school".

Cllr George said he would go back to the director of education and
social services and discuss whether the schools should be named.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Shipyard Worker Wins ARD Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunderland Echo reports that a former shipyard worker living
in the shadow of lung cancer after exposure to asbestos has won
compensation.

Robert Kemp, 75, from Sunderland was exposed to the deadly
chemical while working as an apprentice and then shipwright for
two Wear yards from the 1950s to 1980s.

When he began to suffer from a cough and chest pain in August 2010
he was told by doctors there was a 90 percent chance he had lung
cancer.  A biopsy ruled out cancer but Mr. Kemp was diagnosed with
diffuse pleural thickening, which leaves the former GMB union
branch secretary breathless and unable to walk long distances or
carry out work at home.

"This has had a huge impact on my life," he said.

"It is very frustrating that I cannot do the things I used to be
able to do.  I am terrified that I will get asbestos cancer in the
future and this fear lives with me all the time."

Mr. Kemp had previously been diagnosed with pleural plaques and
through the GMB, he approached Thompsons Solicitors for advice,
only to find the law had changed to end compensation for the
condition.

He approached the firm again after being told he probably had
cancer, and Thompsons was successful in securing compensation from
two of his former employers' insurers.

The provisional settlement allows him to make a further claim for
compensation if his condition worsens in the future due to
asbestos-related disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Albans' Odyssey Cinema's Abatement Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Herts Advertiser reports that dangerous asbestos is being
stripped out of the Odyssey Cinema in St. Albans city centre after
the fiber was discovered throughout the old building.

But neighbors of the former Odeon cinema in London Road are still
concerned about whether they have already been exposed to harmful
dust after volunteers cleared rubble from the art deco building
earlier this year.

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which served a
notice on the cinema to stop work immediately, asbestos is the
single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK.

St. Albans based Borras Construction, the Odyssey's main
contractor during its rebuild, has confirmed that asbestos was
discovered in a recent survey of the derelict building.  It has to
be removed before the GBP1.6 million restoration project can
resume.

Working on or near damaged asbestos-containing materials or
breathing in high levels of the product's fibers can increase a
person's chances of getting an asbestos-related disease, including
mesothelioma.

Adam Bowden, managing director of Borras, said that asbestos
removal began on Monday, Dec. 17.

The clearance is likely to take up to nine weeks and will be
carried out by specialists under controlled conditions, in
accordance with HSE guidelines.

Adam explained that the more dangerous brown asbestos, along with
white asbestos, had been found during the survey - but none was
found on the cinema's exterior.

The survey showed the fiber was present in insulation and noise
reduction panels, floor tiles, fire retardation material and in
the boiler room.

Products containing the fiber will be double-wrapped inside the
building, put in a sealed skip and then disposed of at a licensed
landfill site that specializes in handling dangerous material.

Adam dismissed neighbors' concerns about exposure to asbestos
during decontamination work, saying, "this will not happen."

However Annie Robb, who lives near the cinema, is still worried
about whether she was exposed to dust when 30 volunteers helped
clear the Odyssey's interior in April following demolition work.

That work was carried out before the asbestos survey -- which
Annie received an anonymous tip about.

Annie said she was, "pretty angry that they've been clearing out
and leaving debris all over our road from a contaminated site.
Surely this should have been one of the first things to have
checked, particularly as they have let the public in so many
times."

An HSE spokesman said the executive had identified the "presence
of potentially hazardous asbestos containing material on Nov. 20,
2012.

"A prohibition notice was immediately served to stop any further
refurbishment activity until the material was safely removed.

"An HSE investigation is ongoing into the refurbishment work so it
would be inappropriate to comment on whether any further
enforcement action will be taken."

A spokesman for the Odyssey maintained that asbestos was "never
within reach of visitors, unless they dug out the walls and gave
them a lick."

He added that the restoration team had "strived" to ensure the
safety of neighbors and on-site personnel.  The cinema is still on
schedule to open in early 2014.


                           *********

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  * * *