CAR_Public/121228.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, December 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 256

                             Headlines


ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Complaint in Arkansas
ADVOCAT INC: Defends FLSA-Violation Suits in Tennessee & Arkansas
ADVOCAT INC: Defends Stockholder Suit Over Covington Proposals
AES CORP: Appeal From Greenhouse Gas Suit Dismissal Still Pending
AES CORP: Class Suit vs. Brazilian Unit in Evidentiary Stage

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lefkowitz" Suit Dismissal Appealed
AVX CORP: Continues to Defend Factory-Related Class Suit in S.C.
CANADIAN HEATING: Fireplace Makers in Canada Face Class Action
CF ENTERTAINMENT: Unpaid Comedians File Class Action in Calif.
CITIBANK: Judge Withholds Decision on Flood Insurance Class Action

CORVEL CORP: Completing Dismissal of Claims in "Williams" Suit
ELAN CORPORATION: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in New York
EPOCH HOLDING: Being Sold to TD Bank for Too Little, Suit Says
FIRST INTERSTATE: Awaits OK of Visa Interchange Suit Settlement
INSTAGRAM: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action Over User Terms

INSTAGRAM: Withdraws New Terms of Use Following Protest
KADANT INC: Accrued $1.064MM for Claims Payment in Suit vs. Unit
MEDIWARE INFO: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
NAVARRE CORP: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in Merger Suit
NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES: To Fight U.S. Class Action Over Explosion

NEW YORK LAW: State Appeals Panel Affirms Class Action Dismissal
OXFORD HEALTH: Sup. Ct. to Consider Appeal of Arbitration Ruling
PERRIGO CO: Awaits Feb. 2013 Cert. Bid Hearing in Eltroxin Suit
PERRIGO CO: To Seek Court Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
POWERCOR: Lead Plaintiff Says Class Action Settlement Reasonable

PROSPECT PARK: Sued Over Unlicensed Assisted Living Facility
PUBLICIS GROUPE: Seeks Dismissal of Unauthorized Image Use Suit
S&M INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Yang Sheng Cooked Salted Duck Eggs
STEHOUWER'S FROZEN: Recalls 6,039 Lbs. of Pigs in the Blanket
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Horsepower Label Suits

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Defends Class Suits Over Compressors
UNION BANK: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Emergent Merger-Related Suit Deal Approved
WAYNE FARMS: Recalls 2,320 Lbs. of Frozen Honey BBQ Chicken Wings
WELCH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising

XL GROUP: Appeals From Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal Pending

* Beyond Blue to Launch Discrimination Suit v. Insurance Cos.
* Supreme Ct. May Impose Stricter Class Certification Requirements

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had $23MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Still Monitoring Grace Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Had 1,163 Pending Cases End Sept.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Continues to Monitor Fibro Exposures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Had $436.8MM Loss Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Units Continue to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend Active Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lloyd E. Mitchell, Insurers May Execute Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Remands Letcher v. Ford, et al. Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Court Affirms Ruling Favoring Union Carbide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montevallo School Changes Leader Amid Toxic Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Transportation Wins Verdict on Fraud Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charleston Fire Victims' Stuff Held for Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BC Ferries Audit Reports Fibro Issues on Vessels

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Takes Steps to Eliminate Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOL Probes Webster Village Hall Fibro Problem
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Unsatisfied on Montevallo Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Eyed to Take Up Ohio's Transparency Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Problem in Essex Safety Building Minimal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Partly Blamed for Burnley Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Consultants Plead Guilty to HSE Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anchorage Project Lets Friable Fibro Airborne
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Money Saved on DOE Staff Relocation Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prior Case Testimony Ok'd in Georgia Pacific Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Says Kingston Island Safe for Re-Use
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reported HazMat Dumped in Geelong Still Unsolved


                          *********



ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Complaint in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against Advocat
Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility").  The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the residents of the Facility over the past five
years.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet
been certified by the court as a class action.  The Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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 cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases against it on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The Company's
reserve for professional liability expenses does not include any
amounts for the collective actions, the purported class action
against the Facility or the lawsuit filed against the Company's
directors.  An unfavorable outcome in any of these lawsuits or any
of the Company's professional liability actions, any regulatory
action, any investigation or lawsuit alleging violations of fraud
and abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any state or Federal
False Claims Act case could subject the Company to fines,
penalties and damages, including exclusion from the Medicare or
Medicaid programs, and could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations.


ADVOCAT INC: Defends FLSA-Violation Suits in Tennessee & Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. is defending two collective actions in Tennessee and
Arkansas alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards 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.

In December 2011 and June 2012, two purported collective action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee and the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, respectively, against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries.  The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seek
unpaid overtime wages.  The lawsuits remain in early stages and
have not yet been certified by the courts as collective actions.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases against it on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The Company's
reserve for professional liability expenses does not include any
amounts for the collective actions, the purported class action
against the Facility or the lawsuit filed against the Company's
directors.  An unfavorable outcome in any of these lawsuits or any
of the Company's professional liability actions, any regulatory
action, any investigation or lawsuit alleging violations of fraud
and abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any state or Federal
False Claims Act case could subject the Company to fines,
penalties and damages, including exclusion from the Medicare or
Medicaid programs, and could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations.


ADVOCAT INC: Defends Stockholder Suit Over Covington Proposals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. is defending a stockholder class action lawsuit
arising from certain expressions of interest in a potential
strategic transaction from Covington Investments, LLC, 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 May 16, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, against the Company's Board of Directors.  This action
alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties
to stockholders related to its response to certain expressions of
interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington
Investments, LLC ("Covington").  The complaint asserts that the
Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately consider
Covington's proposals.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages
and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action.
The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases against it on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The Company's
reserve for professional liability expenses does not include any
amounts for the collective actions, the purported class action
against the Facility or the lawsuit filed against the Company's
directors.  An unfavorable outcome in any of these lawsuits or any
of the Company's professional liability actions, any regulatory
action, any investigation or lawsuit alleging violations of fraud
and abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any state or Federal
False Claims Act case could subject the Company to fines,
penalties and damages, including exclusion from the Medicare or
Medicaid programs, and could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations.


AES CORP: Appeal From Greenhouse Gas Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against The AES Corporation and numerous unrelated
companies.  The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages and the Company is unable to estimate
damages at this time.  These and other plaintiffs previously
brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal court but
failed to obtain relief.  In October 2011, the Company and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2012,
the federal court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  The parties are briefing the appeal.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will defend itself
vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances
that it will be successful in its efforts.

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.


AES CORP: Class Suit vs. Brazilian Unit in Evidentiary Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against AES Corporation's subsidiary
in Brazil is in the evidentiary stage, 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.

AES Florestal, Ltd., had been operating a pole factory and had
other assets, including a wooded area known as "Horto Renner," in
the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (collectively, "Property").
Florestal had been under the control of AES Sul since October
1997, when Sul was created pursuant to a privatization by the
Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.  After it came under
the control of Sul, Florestal performed an environmental audit of
the entire operational cycle at the pole factory.  The audit
discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other
contaminants at the pole factory.  The audit concluded that the
prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia
Eletrica ("CEEE"), had been using those contaminants to treat the
poles that were manufactured at the factory.  Sul and Florestal
subsequently took the initiative of communicating with Brazilian
authorities, as well as CEEE, about the adoption of containment
and remediation measures.

In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Class Action
against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE requiring an injunction
for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the
payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($3 million).
The injunction was rejected.  The proposal to the environmental
agency ("FEPAM") with respect to containing and remediating the
contamination was delivered on April 8, 2008.  FEPAM responded by
indicating that the parties should undertake the first step of the
proposal which would be to retain a contractor.  In its response,
Sul indicated that such step should be undertaken by CEEE as the
relevant environmental events resulted from CEEE's operations.  In
October 2011, the State Prosecution Office presented a new request
to the court of Triunfo for an injunction against Florestal, Sul
and CEEE for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination
and remediation, and the court granted the injunction against CEEE
but did not grant injunctive relief against Florestal or Sul.
CEEE appealed such decision, and the State of Rio Grande do Sul
Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

As required by the injunction, CEEE has started the removal and
disposal of the contaminants, which is ongoing, and Sul is not at
risk to bear any of such remediation costs, which are estimated to
be approximately R$14.7 million ($7 million).  The case is in the
evidentiary stage awaiting for the production of the court's
expert opinion on several matters, including which of the parties
had utilized the products found in the area.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lefkowitz" Suit Dismissal Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Lefkowitz appealed the dismissal of her class action lawsuit
against Astoria Financial Corporation, 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 February 27, 2012, a putative class action entitled Ellen
Lefkowitz, individually and on behalf of all Persons similarly
situated v. Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association was
commenced in the Supreme Court of The State of New York, County of
Queens, or the Queens County Supreme Court, against the Company
alleging that during the proposed class period, the Company
improperly charged overdraft fees to customer accounts when
accounts were not overdrawn, improperly reordered electronic debit
transactions from the highest to the lowest dollar amount and
processed debits before credits to deplete accounts and maximize
overdraft fee income.  The complaint contains the further
assertion that the Company did not adequately inform the Company's
customers that they had the option to "opt-out" of overdraft
services.  The Company was served with the summons and complaint
in such action on February 29, 2012, and was initially required to
reply on or before April 30, 2012.  By Stipulation between the
parties, the Company's time to answer was extended to May 7, 2012,
at which time the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.  On July
19, 2012, the Queens County Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing the complaint in its entirety.  On September 7, 2012,
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial
Department, or Appellate Division.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.  The Company cannot at this time estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any.  No assurance can be given at this
time that this litigation against the Company will be resolved
amicably, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that
this litigation will not have an impact on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such
impact will not be material.


AVX CORP: Continues to Defend Factory-Related Class Suit in S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are two lawsuits pending with respect to property adjacent
to AVX Corporation's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration
of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  On November
27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina State Court by
certain individuals as a class action.  Another lawsuit is a
commercial lawsuit filed on January 16, 2008, in South Carolina
State Court.  The Company says it intends to defend vigorously the
claims that have been asserted in these two lawsuits.  At this
stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to
responsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages.  Based on
the Company's estimate of potential outcomes, the Company has
accrued approximately $0.3 million with respect to these cases as
of September 30, 2012.


CANADIAN HEATING: Fireplace Makers in Canada Face Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that a class action lawsuit has been launched
against the makers of certain gas fireplaces.

Last month, a Vancouver toddler accidentally touched the glass on
a fireplace resulting in second-degree burns.

His story is not isolated.

In fact, on Dec. 21, fireplace manufacturers in the states
announced they will provide protective screens as standard
equipment with new gas fireplaces starting in 2015.

There have been more than 2,000 burn cases in the last 10 years.

This latest case in Vancouver has prompted a local lawyer, whose
own daughter suffered similar burns, to launch the first Canadian
class action lawsuit.

"We had a number of visits to the hospital to get Annie tended to
and looked after, and to heal her, and thankfully she is healed
now," said Mike Wagner, who launched the lawsuit.

"But in the course of talking to the staff and the nurses at the
hospital, the question came up 'well you're a lawyer can't you do
something about this?', and asking 'what do you mean by that?' and
'why do you ask?' it became obvious that this is a pattern, it's
not a random or isolated event."

"It's happening on a regular basis and it's always kids who are
too young to really realize what they're doing.  Toddlers
crawling, to sort of, two, three years old," he added.

Kelly Sinoski of Vancouver Sun reports that Craig and Charity
Cantlie, are seeking redress from four fireplace manufacturers
with a proposed class-action lawsuit that claims gas fireplaces
"are defective and dangerous."

In the claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the couple argues their
Montigo fireplace, which is at toddler height, can reach
temperatures as high as 315 C and did not come with a screen or
grate to prevent direct contact with the superheated glass.

"I couldn't believe it happened," Charity Cantlie said. "We were
right in the same room; it happened in a second. We knew the
fireplace was hot but we didn't know it was as hot as it is."

The class action claim cites four defendants -- Canadian Heating
Products Inc. (Montigo Canada); Miles Industries Ltd.; Monessen
Hearth Canada Inc., and Lennox Industries (Canada) Ltd. -- which
have designed, manufactured, marketed and/or sold hundreds of
thousands of fireplaces in B.C. since the 1980s.

The claim seeks safety improvements for the fireplaces, as well as
health costs for the injured, calling the defendants' actions
"high-handed, outrageous and reckless."


CF ENTERTAINMENT: Unpaid Comedians File Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bernadette Pauley claims in
Los Angeles Superior Court class action that these defendants owe
comedians for work on Comedy TV: CF Entertainment, Comics
Unleashed Productions, Entertainment Studios, and Byron Allen
Folks.


CITIBANK: Judge Withholds Decision on Flood Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The Post-Standard, reports that a
federal judge on Dec. 21 withheld decision on whether to throw out
a Syracuse homeowner's lawsuit over the rising cost of his flood
insurance.

U.S. District Judge David Hurd listened to arguments for about 90
minutes in the case of Gordon Casey against Citibank and Midland
Mortgage.

Mr. Casey, 59, of 121 Hartson St. sued over his mortgage lenders'
decision to base his flood insurance on the replacement cost of
his home.  Mr. Casey's insurance premium jumped from $325 a year
when he bought his home 10 years ago to $1,478 this year.

Mr. Casey claims the lenders breached his contract with them and
violated federal truth-in-lending laws.

Citibank hiked Mr. Casey's insurance premiums by demanding his
coverage be based on 80 percent of the home's replacement cost.
When Midland took over the mortgage, it demanded coverage of 100
percent of the replacement cost.

Mr. Casey's home has a market value of about $68,000, according to
city assessors.  But his insurance company set his replacement
cost -- the amount it would cost to build the house from scratch
-- at $237,349.

Mr. Casey is the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit over the
issue.

Lawyers for Midland Mortgage contend the increased costs were in
keeping with Mr. Casey's mortgage agreement.  They said the
contract required him to insure against floods in the amount that
Midland required, and that if he didn't do that, Midland could buy
the insurance for him.


CORVEL CORP: Completing Dismissal of Claims in "Williams" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corporation said in its November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012, that it is in the process of completing
the dismissal of all claims covered by its settlement of a class
action lawsuit in Louisiana.

On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. ("Williams"), as
plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class
Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation ("CorVel") and its
insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and
Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other
unrelated parties.  Williams alleges that CorVel violated
Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires
a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days'
advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a
benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the
contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured
under that payor's health benefit plan.

On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the
class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action
lawsuit.  The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to
the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana
state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for
which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings
during the March 2011 quarter.  In addition, CorVel will assign to
the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's
insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class.
The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration
Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana
Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as
previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the
settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.  Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to
request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings
in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of
Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the
American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named,
until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives
final court approval.  The settlement does not constitute an
admission of liability.

On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive
settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement contains the same
terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding.  Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment
into escrow on July 6, 2011.  As set forth in the settlement
agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court
approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members
challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded
from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and
final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can
become final.

On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of
settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011, for parties to
opt out of or object to the proposed settlement.  Notice of the
settlement was given to Class Members.  The Court gave final
approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011.  No appeal was
filed, so the judgment became final on January 17, 2012.  CorVel
is in the process of completing the dismissal of all claims
covered by the settlement in state and federal court.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members
released CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any
claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or
reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not
limited to claims under the AWPA.  Plaintiffs have also agreed to
a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply
with the AWPA.


ELAN CORPORATION: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on Dec. 21 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
who purchased American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) of Elan
Corporation, plc or call options thereon, or who sold put options
on Elan ADRs during the period from July 21, 2008 through and
including 4:00 pm EDT on July 29, 2008.

If you traded Elan securities during the Class Period, and wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60
days from December 21, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this action,
determine whether you are a class member, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights, please contact plaintiffs'
counsel, Ethan Wohl, at 866 582 8140 or 212 758 4000, or via
e-mail at ewohl@wohlfruchter.com

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

You can view a copy of the complaint or join this class action
online at: http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/sac

The complaint alleges that S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P. (SAC
Capital) and related parties, including its founder and chief
executive officer, Steven Cohen, engaged in illegal insider
trading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
selling Elan ADRs and trading options ahead of adverse clinical
trial results for an Alzheimer's disease drug that was central to
Elan's drug development efforts.

As alleged in the complaint, a portfolio manager at SAC Capital,
Mathew Martoma, obtained inside information from the medical
doctor who chaired the drug's safety monitoring committee, Sidney
Gilman.  The complaint further alleges that after obtaining the
clinical trial results from Gilman, Martoma spoke with Cohen, and
over the following seven trading days, SAC Capital then liquidated
its entire holding of Elan ADRs, worth over $350 million, and
acquired a short position in Elan amounting to approximately 4.5
million ADRs.

When the results of the clinical trial were publicly disclosed
after hours on July 29, 2008, Elan's ADRs dropped sharply in
value, closing the next day down 41.8% from the 4:00 p.m. closing
price on July 29, 2008, prior to the public disclosure.  According
to the complaint, by liquidating its long position and selling
short in advance of the disclosure of the disappointing clinical
trial results, SAC Capital avoided losses and obtained gains of at
least $220 million on its investments in Elan.

Martoma is presently the subject of a criminal prosecution for his
alleged role in the insider trading of Elan securities.  Gilman
has settled civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission arising out of his conduct, agreed to pay more than
$200,000 in disgorgement, and has entered into a nonprosecution
agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office.

The plaintiffs are represented by Wohl & Fruchter LLP --
http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- a firm specializing in litigation
arising from fraud and other fiduciary breaches by corporate
managers, as well as other complex litigation matters.

Contact: Ethan Wohl, Esq.
         Wohl & Fruchter LLP
         Telephone: (212) 758-4000
         Toll Free: (866) 582-8140
         E-mail: ewohl@wohlfruchter.com
         Web site: http://www.wohlfruchter.com


EPOCH HOLDING: Being Sold to TD Bank for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Epoch Holding Corp. is
selling itself too cheaply to Toronto-Dominion Bank, for $668
million or $28 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery
Court.


FIRST INTERSTATE: Awaits OK of Visa Interchange Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
proposed settlement of the Visa Interchange Litigation, 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 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and U.S. financial institution
defendants signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a
settlement agreement to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging
collusion between the defendant banks and the credit card
companies to maintain higher credit card interchange fees.  Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, class merchants may receive
a distribution equal to 10 basis points of default interchange for
a period of eight months, which would effectively reduce
interchange fees received by credit card issuers, like the
Company, during that time.  Based on current transaction volumes,
a 10 basis point reduction in credit interchange fees would not
have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements, results of operations or liquidity.  The proposed
settlement agreement was submitted for preliminary federal court
approval on October 19, 2012.  Assuming the proposed settlement
agreement is approved, the eight-month reduction in interchange
fees could begin in late 2013.


INSTAGRAM: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action Over User Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Oremus, writing for Slate, reports that Instagram on Dec. 20
rolled back the most controversial clause in its proposed terms of
service, and National Geographic, for one, was satisfied by the
change, announcing on Dec. 21 that it would resume posting on the
site.  But the storm isn't over yet.

A San Diego-based law firm said on Dec. 21 that it has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Facebook-owned photo-sharing
service, seeking an injunction to prevent the new terms from going
into effect.  William Restis of the firm Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on
Dec. 21 on behalf of Instagram user Lucy Funes.

A copy of the complaint shows the plaintiffs alleging that
Instagram's new terms amount to breach of contract, unfair
business practices, and violation of California business codes.
Mr. Restis said that the suit won't be slowed by the company's
backtrack last week on a much-hyped clause that specified how
advertisers could display users' photos in promoted posts on the
site.  Instead, he zeroed in on a different sentence.  That clause
gives the company a "transferable, sub-licensable" license to use
your content, as opposed to the "limited" license outlined in
Instagram's current policies.  That phrasing is common to several
other big social-media sites, but new to Instagram.

Mr. Restis said he believes it amounts to an unlawful taking of
users' property rights, particularly when coupled with several
other new stipulations that limit Instagram's legal liability.
For instance, under the new terms, users would waive their right
to file class-action lawsuits -- which is precisely why Mr. Restis
said Funes filed this one.  He called the new policies "a smash
and grab" by Facebook and Instagram that breaks "new ground on how
companies can take valuable property rights from their customers
while making sure those customers can't do anything about it."

Instagram representatives could not be reached for comment on
Dec. 21.


INSTAGRAM: Withdraws New Terms of Use Following Protest
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that back-
pedaling furiously in the face of a federal class action,
Instagram said it would withdraw its decision to claim the right
to sell any photo its users send, for profit, to third-party
advertisers, without even informing the sender.

Instagram, a photo-sending wireless service that Facebook bought
this year for $1 billion, announced, then its new policy last
week, then withdrew it amid a firestorm of protest.

Named plaintiff Lucy Funes claimed on Dec. 21 -- hours after
Instagram said it would change course -- that the company's claim
to have the right to use people's pictures in perpetuity and
restrict how they can seek redress constitutes illegal
misappropriation of property, violate California civil codes and
Instagram's own former terms.

Facebook, which bought Instagram as a start-up, is not a party to
the complaint.

Ms. Funes claimed that the new terms of use, Instagram wanted to
take effect on Jan. 19, would transfer to Instagram a worldwide
license to all customers' intellectual property and personalities,
including the customers' likenesses and artistic content.

Instagram also claimed it could limit damages to $100, though
California law provides for statutory damages of $750 for
"unauthorized use of a person's personality or photograph, and
individual damages from unauthorized commercial use of valuable
photographic art could be much higher."

Ms. Funes' class action did not make copyright or publicity rights
claims, that commentators cited that as another problem with
Instagram's power-grab: not just interfering with photo-taker's
possible copyright claims, but with the rights of people in the
photos that Instagram wanted to sell to advertisers.

Its proposed terms of use also would "prevent customers from
obtaining injunctive or equitable relief to ever stop Instagram,"
by requiring customers to agree that "any damages, losses or
injuries that arise out of Instagram's acts or omissions . . .
caused to you are not irreparable or sufficient to entitle you to
an injunction," according to the complaint.  Instagram explicitly
rejected that its customers had any "rights to enjoin or restrain"
its conduct.

The terms also "waive all customer rights to judicial remedies,
except small claims, by engrafting a no-class action arbitration
clause" and "artificially limit the statute of limitations for all
claims against Instagram to one (1) year," the complaint states.

Instagram, in short, was "taking its customers' property rights,
while insulating itself from all liability for doing so."  If a
customer objected, he or she could cancel the service, but
"forfeit[s] all right to retrieve the property that was previously
entrusted to Instagram, which retains rights thereto in
perpetuity.  In short, Instagram declares that 'possession is
nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop
us," the complaint states.

Ms. Funes sued on behalf of all California-based Instagram users
who would be affected by the new terms and who have at least one
picture of the account owner on the site.  The suit claims the new
terms violated Instagram's own terms of use "by adding new and
additional provisions that go far beyond the scope and subject
matter of the current terms, thereby breaching the current terms
and the attendant implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing."

She also claimed that the new "transferrable and sub-licensable"
license to users' self-photographs and other likenesses
"constitutes a nonconsensual commercial use of 'name, voice,
signature, photograph or likeness'" that violates California law.

The class sued Instagram Inc. and Instagram LLC for breach of
contract, bad faith, violation of California Civil Codes, breach
of bailment and declaratory relief.

They want the worldwide "transferrable and sublicensable" license
voided from the new terms; a court declaration that Instagram will
not claim or exercise ownership rights over users' property
without their express authorization and another saying customers
do not waive their rights to equitable, injunctive or declaratory
remedies or damages; customer controls on how Instagram and
transferees/sublicensees can commercially exploit the property;
and a change in procedures to allow users to download or otherwise
obtain exclusive and actual possession of their property.
They are represented by Jeffrey Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk of
San Diego.

Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom announced on the company's blog
late Thursday night, Dec. 20, that it would change the advertising
section of its terms of service back to its former policy.


KADANT INC: Accrued $1.064MM for Claims Payment in Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 29, 2012, Kadant Inc. has accrued $1,064,000 for
the payment of claims under a settlement of a class action lawsuit
against one of 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 29, 2012.

In 2005, the Company's Kadant Composites LLC subsidiary
(Composites LLC) sold substantially all of its assets to a third
party.  Through the sale date of October 21, 2005, Composites LLC
offered a standard limited warranty to the owner of its decking
and roofing products, limited to repair or replacement of the
defective product or a refund of the original purchase price.
Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement, Composites LLC
retained certain liabilities associated with the operation of the
business prior to the sale, including the warranty obligations
associated with products manufactured prior to the sale date.
Composites LLC retained all of the cash proceeds received from the
asset sale and continued to administer and pay warranty claims
from the sale proceeds into the third quarter of 2007.  On
September 30, 2007, Composites LLC announced that it no longer had
sufficient funds to honor warranty claims, was unable to pay or
process warranty claims, and ceased doing business.  All activity
related to this business is classified in the results of the
discontinued operation in the accompanying condensed consolidated
financial statements.

On October 24, 2011, the Company, Composites LLC, and other co-
defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide class
action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites decking
building products manufactured by Composites LLC between April
2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in Connecticut
state court.  To participate in the settlement, eligible
settlement class members were required to file a proof of claim on
or before September 10, 2012.  The claim administrator reviewed
claims and was to complete payment to eligible claimants by
December 14, 2012.

In the third quarter of 2012, the Company reduced the accrual for
the payment of claims by $1,513,000 based on the claims submitted
to date.  As of September 29, 2012, the Company has accrued
$1,064,000 for the payment of claims.  If the actual claims
submitted and approved under the settlement agreement exceed the
amount of this reserve, the Company will reflect the amount of the
additional claims in the results of the discontinued operation in
future periods, up to a maximum of $5,000,000.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The Company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The Company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale
in April 2007, Casting Products.  Its Papermaking Systems segment
develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global
papermaking and paper recycling industries.  The Company is based
in Westford, Massachusetts.


MEDIWARE INFO: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Mediware Information Systems, Inc. is facing a merger-related
class action lawsuit in New York, 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 September 11, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Project Ruby Parent
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Project Ruby Merger
Corp., a New York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Subsidiary"), providing for the merger ("Merger")
of Merger Subsidiary with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.
Parent and Merger Subsidiary are controlled affiliates of Thoma
Bravo, LLC.

On October 18, 2012, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, against the Company, its directors, Thoma Bravo, LLC, an
affiliate of Parent and Merger Subsidiary, and Merger Subsidiary.
The complaint for the case, styled Kempf v. Mediware Information
Systems, Inc. et al., Index No.: 653649/2012, alleges that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in the merger and by failing to
disclose certain material information in the proxy statement.  The
complaint also alleges that Thoma Bravo, LLC and Merger Subsidiary
aided and abetted these breaches.  The complaint seeks to enjoin
the transaction as well as rescission, damages, legal fees and
other relief.  As of November 5, 2012, the Company had not been
served with the complaint, and therefore, has no obligation to
respond.  If the Company is served with the complaint, it intends
to vigorously defend against the action as it does not believe
that the claims alleged have merit.


NAVARRE CORP: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corporation disclosed in its November 7, 2012, Form 8-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied
in November 2012 plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

On October 29, 2012, Navarre Corporation (the "Company") filed a
Form 8-K and advised shareholders that, among other things, on
October 16, 2012, a purported class action on behalf of Navarre
shareholders relating to the transactions contemplated by the
SpeedFC Merger Agreement was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company, the Board
of Directors, the Company's acquisition subsidiary and SpeedFC,
Inc. entitled Helene Gottlieb v. Richard S. Willis, et al.  The
lawsuit generally alleged that the Board breached its fiduciary
duties and violated disclosure requirements, and the plaintiff
sought unspecified damages and equitable relief.

On October 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and a hearing occurred on November 1,
2012.

On November 7, 2012, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction.


NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES: To Fight U.S. Class Action Over Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Neptune Technologies &
Bioressources Inc. says it will fight a U.S. class-action lawsuit
from shareholders over a powerful explosion and fire at its
industrial plant in Sherbrooke, Que., that killed three and
injured 18 last month.

The Quebec-based company said on Dec. 20 that the lawsuit is
"completely without merit" and that it has "substantial and
meritorious legal and factual defenses, which Neptune intends to
pursue vigorously."

The law firm representing shareholders claims, among other things,
that Neptune had installed larger acetone storage tanks at the
Sherbrooke production plant that facilitated "dangerously high
levels" of the chemical at the site.

Neptune said on Dec. 20 the amount of acetone levels stored on-
site or used in the production of its krill oil products never
exceeded levels permitted by the province.  It also obtained the
required construction permits for the plant expansion and was in
the process of obtaining the required environmental permits for
the expansion.

It repeated that a Quebec Ministry of Environment notice received
on Nov. 16 alleging environmental non-compliance related to
equipment acquisitions and the plant expansion, not acetone
levels.

The incident occurred in Quebec's Eastern Townships at a facility
which produces health products derived from marine life.

The lawsuit filed on Dec. 19 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint was filed on behalf of the purchasers of Neptune
stock between Dec. 12, 2011 and Nov. 18, 2012.  The period
included a public offering of Neptune shares on Sept. 25, 2012, at
$4.10.

The stock is now worth about half that, trading at about $2.05 on
the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The firm representing shareholders, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, said that throughout the relevant period Neptune "lauded the
future benefits" of an expansion at the production plant and
failed to disclose several adverse facts.

Neptune says it continues to work on its plan to resume its
neutraceutical operations and certain levels of sales of its
products to customers in the short term, while reconstructing a
plant using the expansion facility and equipment that doesn't
appear to have suffered significant damage in the explosion.

The company has said it expects insurance coverage would likely be
enough to fund most of the costs for construction of a new plant
that could be operational in six to nine months.


NEW YORK LAW: State Appeals Panel Affirms Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Journal, reports that
although criticizing New York Law School for being "less than
candid," a state appeals panel on Dec. 20 affirmed the dismissal
of a class action lawsuit accusing the school of misleading
potential students about its graduates' success in finding legal
jobs.

The plaintiffs, a group of New York Law graduates, allege they
were misled about their post-graduation job prospects by
statistics put out by the school suggesting that a large majority
of its graduates found full-time employment as lawyers.  The
numbers included people who had part-time jobs or jobs that did
not require a law degree, and the reported salary data was based
on a small, self-selected group.

The school's new dean, Anthony Crowell, has since made public all
data the school provides to the American Bar Association and to
rankings publishers.

The suit included claims for violating New York's General Business
Law, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.  It was one of 14
similar suits filed against lower-ranked law schools around the
country by attorneys Jesse Strauss and David Anziska, and is the
first to be decided at the appellate level.

In March, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Melvin Schweitzer
dismissed the case, ruling that potential law students are "a
sophisticated subset of education consumers" who can interpret the
data provided by the school for themselves.

Writing for a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, First
Department, in Gomez-Jimenez v. New York Law School, 652226/11,
Justice Rolando Acosta criticized the school's marketing and said
he "does not necessarily agree" that would-be law students are
"particularly sophisticated in making career or business
decisions."  Nonetheless, he affirmed the lower court's
conclusion.

Justice Acosta wrote that while there is "no question that the
type of employment information published by defendant (and other
law schools) during the relevant period likely left some consumers
with an incomplete, if not false, impression of the schools' job
placement success, Supreme Court correctly held that this
statistical gamesmanship, which the ABA has since repudiated in
its revised disclosure guidelines, does not give rise to a
cognizable claim under" the General Business Law.

Essentially, Justice Acosta said, while New York Law School's
statements may have been incomplete, they were not false.

"First, with respect to the employment data, defendant made no
express representations as to whether the work was full-time or
part-time," he said.  "Second, with respect to the salary data,
defendant disclosed that the representations were based on small
samples of self-reporting graduates.  While we are troubled by the
unquestionably less than candid and incomplete nature of
defendant's disclosures, a party does not violate [the General
Business Law] by simply publishing truthful information and
allowing consumers to make their own assumptions about the nature
of the information."

Justice Acosta further wrote that the school could not be liable
for fraudulent concealment "because plaintiffs have not alleged
any special relationship or fiduciary obligation requiring a duty
of full and complete disclosure from defendants to its prospective
students."

Despite rejecting the plaintiff's claims, Justice Acosta ended the
opinion by saying he was "not unsympathetic to plaintiffs'
concerns," and emphasizing that "the practice of law is a noble
profession that takes pride in its high ethical standards."

He added, "Indeed, in order to join and continue to enjoy the
privilege of being an active member of the legal profession, every
prospective and active member of the profession is called upon to
demonstrate candor and honesty."

Justices David Friedman, Sheila Abdus-Salaam, Sallie Manzanet-
Daniels and Nelson Roman joined the opinion.

"We're very pleased with the decision," said Venable partner
Michael Volpe, counsel to the school.  "The legal claims lacked
merit."

"The true measure of a legal education is over the course of a
career, and any graduate of any law school would have to evaluate
the value of their education after years, not just a few months,"
added Mr. Volpe, a 1990 graduate of New York Law.

Jesse Strauss, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients
would likely seek leave to appeal.

"The First Department is just wrong on the law," he said.  "The
fact that they basically found that the employment reports were
less than candid and incomplete cannot, as a matter of law, mean
that there's no GBL claim."

Mr. Strauss said the last section of the opinion amounted to no
more than "wagging a finger."


OXFORD HEALTH: Sup. Ct. to Consider Appeal of Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
BakerHostetler on Dec. 20 disclosed that the Supreme Court
recently granted certiorari to consider Oxford Health Plans'
appeal of a ruling compelling class arbitration with its providers
over the insurer's payment practices.  In Oxford Health Plans LLC
v. Sutter, a key question the Supreme Court will consider is: what
contractual basis supports a finding that the parties agreed to
class arbitration?

Two years ago, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int. Corp.,
the Supreme Court held that parties may not be compelled under the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to submit to class arbitration in
the absence of specific evidence that they agreed to do so. 130
S.Ct. 1758 (2010).  In Stolt-Nielsen, the majority held that
class-based arbitrations were not permitted unless the parties
expressed a clear intent to engage in such an arbitration: "[T]he
differences between bilateral and class-action arbitration are too
great for arbitrators to presume, consistent with their limited
powers under the FAA, that the parties' mere silence on the issue
of class-action arbitration constitutes consent to resolve their
dispute in class proceedings." Id. at 625.

In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, the lower courts found a
contractual basis for class arbitration.  The parties had entered
a 1998 Primary Care Physician Agreement (the "Agreement") which
provided that any disputes between the parties be submitted to
arbitration. 675 F.3d 215, 217 (3d Cir. 2012).  The Agreement did
not expressly address class arbitration.  Rather, it contained a
broad clause regarding arbitration:

No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this
Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such
disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration. . .
.

Id. at 222.  The arbitrator interpreted this clause as allowing
class arbitration, holding that the phrase "all such disputes"
included all conceivable court actions, including class actions.

Oxford filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator's ruling in
district court, arguing that the arbitrator had exceeded its
powers under 9 U.S.C. Sec. 10(a).  Oxford also argued that the
arbitrator ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Stolt-
Nielsen.  The district court rejected Oxford's motion to vacate,
and the Third Circuit affirmed the district court.  The Third
Circuit expressly distinguished the arbitration clause at issue in
Oxford from the one in Stolt-Nielsen, noting that the arbitration
clause in Oxford was not "silent" regarding class arbitration.

The message from this litigation is clear.  Regardless of which
way the Supreme Court rules in Oxford, a party that wishes to
limit class action exposure should provide in its arbitration
clauses that (1) all disputes, regardless of type, must be
arbitrated; and (2) arbitrations may only proceed individually and
not on a class or collective basis.


PERRIGO CO: Awaits Feb. 2013 Cert. Bid Hearing in Eltroxin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company is awaiting the February 2013 hearing on whether
or not the court will certify a consolidated lawsuit related to
Eltroxin as a class action, 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.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd.  The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel.  The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug.  As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patient's lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications.  On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application.  On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants.  Generally, the allegations in the consolidated
motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions;
however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the
reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent.  A motion objecting to the
removal of the manufacturer of Eltroxin from the consolidated
motion was filed, and this motion is still pending.  A hearing on
whether or not to certify the consolidated application is
scheduled for February 2013.

As this matter is in its early stages, the Company says it cannot
reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if
any, associated with these claims.

Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops,
manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic
prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  The
Company's primary markets and locations of manufacturing and
logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the
United Kingdom and Australia.  The Company is headquartered in
Allegan, Michigan.


PERRIGO CO: To Seek Court Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company has yet to finalize and seek court approval of a
settlement resolving a securities litigation in New York,
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.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner (Warner) filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the
President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief
Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others.  The plaintiff sought
to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between November 6, 2008, and February 2, 2009.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  The
plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by
failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain
auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling
approximately $18 million in par value (the "ARS"), had been
purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman").  The
plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the
seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman's bankruptcy
filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable
to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value.
The complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable
or injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several other purported
shareholders of the Company, rather than Warner, as co-lead
plaintiffs (the "Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs").  On July 31, 2009,
these Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual
defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a
"control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the members of the Company's Audit Committee.  The amended
complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the
original pleading.  It also alleged that the Company should have
disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had provided the
allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted
in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009,
which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the
value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter
of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter,
immediately following Lehman's bankruptcy filing.

On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims against all defendants.  On September 30, 2010, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed the "control person" claims against the
members of the Company's Audit Committee, but denied the motion to
dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants.  On
October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the grounds that the Original Co-Lead
Plaintiffs (who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint) lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws
following a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court
holding that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply
extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who
purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges.  On
December 23, 2010, a purported shareholder named Harel Insurance,
Ltd. ("Harel") filed a motion to intervene as an additional named
plaintiff.  On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff, Warner,
filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Original Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss.  The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the
Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might
ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who
purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other
means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted
Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff; and (iv) ruled
that Warner would also be treated as a named plaintiff.

On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of both Harel and Warner, alleging the same claims as in
the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported class limited
to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market or by
other means involving transactions in the United States.  On
October 27, 2011, the Court approved a stipulation appointing
Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs").

On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended
complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
numerous defenses.  Although the Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to this lawsuit, the Company has engaged in
settlement discussions with counsel for the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
an effort to move the matter to a quicker resolution and avoid the
costs and distractions of protracted litigation.  As a result of
these discussions, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and have
executed a Memorandum of Settlement outlining the essential terms
of the proposed settlement.  The settlement would be subject to
Court approval.  In order to finalize the settlement, the parties
will be required to engage in a process involving a number of
additional steps, including the drafting of a detailed Stipulation
of Settlement and the filing of a motion asking the Court to
approve the settlement after providing notice and the opportunity
to be heard to the members of the proposed settlement class.
There can be no assurance that a final settlement will be reached
or approved by the Court.  Regardless of whether the proposed
settlement is finalized and approved, the Company believes the
resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition and results of operations as reported
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops,
manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic
prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  The
Company's primary markets and locations of manufacturing and
logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the
United Kingdom and Australia.  The Company is headquartered in
Allegan, Michigan.


POWERCOR: Lead Plaintiff Says Class Action Settlement Reasonable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Quirk, writing for The Standard, reports that almost four
years after the Weerite-Pomborneit Black Saturday fire, and 21
days of a Supreme Court compensation case, it was all over in a
matter of minutes.

The class action agreement, estimated to be worth about AUD10
million, was reached moments before Justice Jack Forrest was due
to deliver his judgment in the Warrnambool Supreme Court on
Dec. 19.

Lead plaintiff and Pomborneit fire brigade captain Terry Place
said a settlement reached by his legal team and the counsel
representing Powercor did not bring closure to the events of
February 7, 2009 -- but "it was a start".

There were few days of the hearing missed by Mr. Place, his
friends and other members of the class action.

On Dec. 19, he said the experience had been stressful not just for
him but also the Weerite and Pomborneit communities.

"I'm normally a pretty good sleeper but I've had a fair few
sleepless nights," he said.

"It has been hard but it happens to people all over the country,
different things like this.

"Hopefully it's a start of the finishing of the process."

Mr. Place said it would have been good to hear Justice Jack
Forrest make a determination, but he was happy to see 100 per cent
of damages paid.

"We're happy with it, but it still doesn't cover everything," he
said.

"There are certain losses that you never get back but it's a
pretty reasonable result, I think."

Like most, it was the first time Mr. Place had ever been in a
courtroom and he said he had been impressed with the process.

"To sit there nearly every day for five weeks, it's an eye-opener.
The only disappointing part was not to hear the judgment at the
finish but I think we got the judgment which was good enough for
us."

Weerite resident Bob Hewitt said he was "thrilled to bits" with
the settlement if it meant more care would be taken by power
companies.

"Only so far as the fact that in the future they will maintain
their lines better than what they have in the past," he said.

"They've been put on notice.  The money is only secondary."

Weerite residents Scott and Rachael Johnstone said there was a
sense of relief that an agreement had been reached.

"We're both very appreciative of the work our solicitors and
barristers have put in," the Johnstones said.

"It's a long process given the amount of time Terry and his wife
Jo put in while their business basically stood still."


PROSPECT PARK: Sued Over Unlicensed Assisted Living Facility
------------------------------------------------------------
John Marzulli, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
Park Slope residence for senior citizens has been slapped with a
class action lawsuit accusing operators of running an unlicensed
assisted living facility.

The suit, filed on Dec. 19 in Brooklyn Federal Court by the nephew
of the late "kung fu judge" John Phillips, alleges that Prospect
Park Residence "intentionally misrepresents" itself and
overcharges residents at a monthly rate as if it is a state-
licensed assisted living residence.

Judge Phillips lived at the nine-story Prospect Park West facility
from May 2007 until his death in February 2008.

The judge's nephew, the Rev. Samuel Boykin, previously filed a
wrongful death suit in state Supreme Court alleging the facility
failed to properly care for Judge Phillips who had suffered from
dementia.

Judge Phillips was known as the "kung fu judge" because of his
black belt in martial arts and combative style.

"This is a very unfortunate situation that the residents and their
families have been taken advantage of by being promised a licensed
care facility yet were denied that by this fraudulent scheme,"
said lawyer Hunter Shkolnik (CQ) who filed the federal suit.

"They do not provide the level of care that a licensed facility
would," he said.

Mr. Shkolnik also represents former resident Irene Dozier who
lived at the Prospect Park Residence from July 2008 until last
August and is also mentally incapacitated.  Judge Phillips and
Ms. Dozier paid $5,000 in monthly rent plus additional fees for
medical services, according to the suit.

The lawyer estimated that more than 1,000 current and past
residents of the facility could be eligible to join the class
action.

The overbilling amount to millions of dollars, Mr. Shkolnik
charged.

Prospect Park Residence executive director David Pomerantz did not
return a call seeking comment.

The facility applied to the state Health Department for a license
in 2009 which was not granted because the application was
incomplete.  A Health Department spokesman could not immediately
provide an update.

New York's public health law defines an assisted living residence
as "an entity which provides or arranges for housing, on-site
monitoring and personal care services and/or home care services .
. . in a home-like setting to five or more adult residents
unrelated to the assisted living provider."

The Prospect Park Residence Web site doesn't use the term assisted
living, but boasts of "the finest in senior living" with pre-war
apartments, housekeeping and laundry services, an emergency call
system and van service for errands and medical appointments.  It
also promises a secure floor for residents suffering from dementia
and Alzheimer's disease.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution and
punitive damages against the facility.


PUBLICIS GROUPE: Seeks Dismissal of Unauthorized Image Use Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve McClellan, writing for MediaPost, reports that Publicis
Groupe and subsidiary ad agency Saatchi & Saatchi North America
have asked a New York State Supreme Court Judge to dismiss charges
leveled at them in a class action lawsuit alleging that they
improperly used models' images without proper authorization in ads
made on behalf of clients.

The formal complaint was filed last month by model Louisa Raske,
who charged that she and dozens of other models were cheated out
of more than $20 million in fees by modeling agencies, such as
Wilhelmina Models, Ford Models and Trump Model Management.  Along
with a number of ad agencies, the suit also charged several
cosmetics makers including Revlon and Coty with unauthorized image
use.

The agencies and marketers were not accused of willful misconduct,
according to the suit.  Ms. Raske alleges that the agencies and
marketers were, in effect, duped by the modeling agencies into
paying for the rights to use models' images, based on contracts
between models and modeling agencies that were not valid. That
said, Ms. Raske contends in the suit that the agencies and their
clients are still culpable.

But Publicis Groupe and Saatchi, the first agency entitled to
respond to the specific allegations in the suit, argue otherwise.
The holding company and its ad shop contend that the modeling
agencies "authorized the use of the model images," and that
neither the ad agencies or their marketer clients "had any
knowledge of the alleged malfeasance."  In addition, they added,
the ad shops "merely represent the true end-users" and thus can't
be held liable for misuse of images in the ads.

Publicis and Saatchi argued that Ms. Raske lacked standing to sue
them because "she had no alleged relationship with [them] and no
injury arising from any alleged actions" of either the holding
company or the agency.  "Plaintiff has not alleged that she ever
had any relationship -- contractual, fiduciary or otherwise --
with" either entity.

In her suit, Ms. Raske demanded an accounting from the agencies of
specific ads in which her image was used.  But Publicis and
Saatchi argued that they were under no obligation to provide one.
"Under controlling New York precedent the mere fact that
plaintiffs may not be aware of the amounts to which they are
entitled does not make a defendant a fiduciary, and does not
entitle plaintiffs to an accounting from a defendant," they
stated.


S&M INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Yang Sheng Cooked Salted Duck Eggs
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&M International Inc, of Bayonne, New Jersey, is recalling Yang
Sheng cooked salted duck eggs, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can
cause serious life-threatening illness or death.  Consumers are
warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell
spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distention and constipation
may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing these problems
should seek medical attention.

The recalled eggs were distributed between August to October 2012
to stores and markets located in New York City area, PA, VA, MI.
This product is vacuum packed in plastic with six eggs per 12.69
oz. package.  UPC code 6949682803568.  The lot code is YS12-02C,
printed on the product boxes.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through NYSDAM
Sampling which revealed the product was not processed in a manner
to prevent growth of Clostridium botulinum.  S&M International Inc
reached the decision to recall this product after a thorough
investigation.  The Company has taken a number of corrective steps
to address the issue.

S&M International INC is working with retailers who purchased eggs
to schedule return of those products for a full refund.  Customers
who have purchased the affected products are urged to discard the
product.  Customers who believe they might have purchased product
affected by the recall, or those who are unsure, should contact
the original place of purchase, or contact the Company at 201-332-
8868, Monday to Friday between 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time
Zone).


STEHOUWER'S FROZEN: Recalls 6,039 Lbs. of Pigs in the Blanket
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stehouwer's Frozen Foods, a Grand Rapids, Michigan establishment,
is recalling approximately 6,039 pounds of Pigs in the Blanket
products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, milk,
which is not declared on the label, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 13.5-lb. cases of "Stehouwer's Pigs in the Blanket."  Each
     case contains 12 individual 18-oz. packages of "Stehouwer's
     Pigs in the Blanket."  The products were produced on
     September 27, 2012, October 25, 2012, and December 13, 2012,
     and they have use by dates of September 27, 2013,
     October 25, 2013, and December 13, 2013.

   * 5-lb. bulk packages of "Stehouwer's Pigs in the Blanket."
     These packages are labeled "FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE ONLY."
     They were produced on October 25, 2012, and have the use by
     date of 102513.

Each case and package bears the establishment number "EST. 6814"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  They were distributed for
institutional use and to retail stores in Michigan.  Pictures of
the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/6MmcN6

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
routine label review.  The FSIS inspector saw that nonfat milk was
listed as an ingredient in the mix used to make the dough for this
product, but it was not listed on the final product label.  The
ingredient supplier had changed its spice mix components in the
time since Stehouwer's Frozen Foods had created labels for the
Pigs in the Blanket products.  FSIS and the Company have not
received reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these
products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a
healthcare provider.

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

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Tim May, Stehouwer's Frozen Foods' president, at (616) 453-2471.

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
"Stehouwer's Pigs in the Blanket" products that have been recalled
by Stehouwer's Frozen Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/6MmcN6,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name         City and State
    -------------         --------------
    Meijer                Stores in Western Michigan
    Save-a-Lot            Stores in Western Michigan
    Spartan Stores        Stores in Western Michigan
    Dave's Meat           Store in Grand Rapids, Michigan


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Horsepower Label Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits over horsepower labels of lawnmower engines and
lawnmowers in Canada, 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 March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the Company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition
in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel
the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawnmower or the engine contained within the lawnmower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994, and the date of judgment.  Plaintiffs
seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs
and equitable relief.  In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition
Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh
Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November
2007, have notified the Company that they claim indemnification
with respect to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase
Agreement with them.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
its financial position, consolidated results of operations and
cash flows.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the Company and several other defendants (including those
listed) advancing allegations similar to those outlined.
Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and equitable relief.  As stated, Snowstorm
Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers
of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in
November 2007, have notified the Company that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under its Stock
Purchase Agreement with them.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
its financial position, consolidated results of operations and
cash flows.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Defends Class Suits Over Compressors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits related to an antitrust investigation in the
compressor industry, 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 February 17, 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and
a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to
investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive
pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry.  The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The Company has entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with
the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy.
Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any
criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to
the investigation against the Company as long as it, among other
things, continues its full cooperation in the investigation.  The
Company has received similar conditional immunity from the
European Commission and the SDE, and has received or requested
immunity or leniency from competition authorities in other
jurisdictions.  On December 7, 2011, the European Commission
announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain
of the Company's competitors received fines for the conduct
investigated.  As a result of the Company's conditional immunity,
it was not assessed any fine.

While the Company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs.  The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.
All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") procedures.

As previously reported, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh
Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do
Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the
direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June 24, 2010, to resolve claims in
the action in order to avoid the costs and distraction of this
ongoing class action litigation.

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of the Company's
proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because
the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement
class were inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date
granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss
claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional
compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for
refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air
conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005, to December 31,
2008 (the "Covered Products").

On October 15, 2012, the Company entered into a new settlement
agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement
Agreement"), which must be approved by the court.  The Settlement
Agreement was made by and between the Company and its subsidiaries
and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products in the
United States, its territories and possessions, directly from a
defendant.  Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in
exchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser
claims against the Company relating to refrigeration compressors,
the Company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and,
in addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and
administrative costs associated with administering the settlement.
These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarter
ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010), in
the line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and
other items."  Under the original agreement, administrative costs
were recorded as $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement
the difference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company.

For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the United
States, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30,
2010, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the indirect
purchaser class action on August 30, 2010.  On June 7, 2012, the
court partially granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint with regard to claims for purchasers in several
states in which the complaint identified no named plaintiff.
Supplemental briefs on the remaining issues raised in motions to
dismiss have been submitted to the court, which has not yet ruled
on the issues.  In Canada, the class actions are still in a
preliminary stage.


UNION BANK: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Employment Attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Union Bank, N.A. on
December 20, 2012, alleging that Union Bank failed to pay their
salaried Asset Review Analysts overtime pay even though these
employees worked in excess of 8 hours in a workday and more than
40 hours in a workweek.  Fay, et al. v. Union Bank, N.A., Case No.
30-2012-00619717 is currently pending in the Orange County
Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the overtime class action Complaint filed against the
banking institution, the company allegedly violated California
state labor laws by failing to pay their Asset Review Analysts for
the overtime hours they worked.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Asset Review Analysts regularly worked in excess
of eight (8) hours in a workday and forty (40) hours in a workweek
primarily engaging in non-exempt job tasks such as inputting
financial data into spreadsheets and producing loan status reports
for upper management at Union Bank.  The Complaint states that as
a result of the alleged misclassification, Union Bank
systematically underpaid overtime compensation to these employees.

Norman B. Blumenthal, the managing partner of the firm
representing the Plaintiffs in this case, stated "by
misclassifying their employees as exempt from overtime pay,
employers not only hurt their employees, but they cheat California
taxpayers."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back
against their employers.  If you think you have been incorrectly
classified as exempt from overtime pay or have been cheated out of
wages by your employer, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
for a free confidential consultation by calling (866) 771-7099.


UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Emergent Merger-Related Suit Deal Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Hospital Services, Inc. received approval of its
settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit in January
2012, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2011, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc. ("Sunrise Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Emergent Group Inc., pursuant to which the Company and Sunrise
Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") to purchase all
of the issued and outstanding shares of Emergent Group's common
stock at a purchase price of $8.46 per share in cash, followed by
a merger of Sunrise Merger Sub with and into Emergent Group with
Emergent Group surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company (the "Merger").  The Merger was completed on April 1,
2011.  Three putative shareholder class action complaints
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
were filed on behalf of three separate plaintiffs (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs") in the Superior Court of the State of California
in the County of Los Angeles (the "Court") against Emergent Group,
UHS, Sunrise Merger Sub and the individual members of the Emergent
Group Board (collectively, the "Defendants").  One was filed on
February 22, 2011, by Brian McManus, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, a second was filed on February 28,
2011, by Bryan Lamb, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and the third was filed on March 2, 2011, by
Leena Dave, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated.  Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the
members of the Emergent Group Board breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the public shareholders of Emergent Group by
attempting to sell Emergent Group by means of an unfair process
with preclusive deal protection devices at an unfair price of
$8.46 in cash per share and by entering into the Merger Agreement,
approving the Offer and the proposed Merger, engaging in self
dealing and failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Emergent Group to its public shareholders.  The complaints further
allege that Emergent Group, UHS and Sunrise Merger Sub aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the
complaints allege that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement
unduly restricted Emergent Group's ability to negotiate with rival
bidders.  The complaints sought, among other things, declaratory
and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
Merger and other forms of equitable relief.

On March 22, 2011, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
lawsuits for all purposes, and renamed the consolidated lawsuits
"In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation".  On March 24,
2011, a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the
consolidated lawsuits (the "MOU") was agreed to by the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants.  Following entry of the MOU the parties
entered into a definitive Settlement Agreement, subject to Court
approval, that provided in exchange for the Emergent Group's
amendment of its Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental
disclosures Plaintiffs would seek an order dismissing all actions
alleging claims relating to the Merger and providing a full and
final release in favor of the Defendants and their related parties
from any claims that arose pursuant to or are related to the Offer
or the Merger.  The Defendants agreed that Emergent Group or its
successor or their respective insurers will pay the Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses as are awarded by the Court not to
exceed $225,000.  At December 31, 2011, the Company has paid
$75,000 and anticipate the remainder of the balance to be paid by
the Company's insurers.  Notice of the proposed settlement was
sent to Emergent Group common shareholders and the Court entered a
final order and judgment approving the settlement on January 9,
2012, which included approval of the sum of $225,000 for the
payment of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses.


WAYNE FARMS: Recalls 2,320 Lbs. of Frozen Honey BBQ Chicken Wings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Farms, a Decatur, Alabama establishment, is recalling
approximately 2,320 pounds of frozen honey barbeque chicken wing
products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, egg,
that is not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 4-lb. bags of "GFS(R) Honey BBQ Flavored Chicken Wings"
     packed in 16-lb. cases

The cases bear the establishment number "P-33885" inside the USDA
mark of inspection and a case code of 572160.  The bags bear a
production date of "11/28/12" above "p#33885" inkjetted on the
package.  The products were produced November 28, 2012, and were
shipped to a foodservice distribution center in Kentucky for
distribution at the retail level in Indiana, Kentucky and
Tennessee.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://is.gd/lRXayz

The problem was discovered when a customer attempted to scan the
product into inventory and was unable to.  The product being
recalled was produced with eggs and packaged in bags for product
formulated without eggs.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare
provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Company's Director of Marketing and Communication, Alan
Sterling, at (678) 450-3092.

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that GFS Stores in Indiana, Kentucky and
Tennessee received the Honey Barbecue Chicken Wing products that
have been recalled by Wayne Farms.

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


WELCH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Welch's falsely advertises
its juices and other products as having "no sugar added," or as
"all natural" with "no artificial flavors" and "no preservatives,"
a class claims.

The case is Elizabeth Park; Carolyn Otto v. Welch Foods Inc.


XL GROUP: Appeals From Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving XL Group plc's settlement of an
antitrust multidistrict litigation remain 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 August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action (the "Class
Action") that was consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663,
Civil Action No. 04-5184 (the "MDL"), filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which named as new defendants
approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich Insurance Company,
Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL-Cayman (the "XL
Defendants").  In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted
various claims purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial
insureds against approximately 113 insurance companies and
insurance brokers through which the named plaintiffs allegedly
purchased insurance.  The Amended Complaint alleged that the
defendant insurance companies and insurance brokers conspired to
manipulate bidding practices for insurance policies in certain
insurance lines and failed to disclose certain commission
arrangements and asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act,
various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law claims
alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  By Opinion and Order dated
August 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the Sherman Act
claims with prejudice and, by Opinion and Order dated September
28, 2007, the District Court dismissed the RICO claims with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the
Third Circuit affirmed in large part the District Court's
dismissal.  The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of certain
Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against several defendants
including the XL Defendants but remanded those claims to the
District Court for further consideration of their adequacy.  In
light of its reversal and remand of certain of the federal claims,
the Third Circuit also reversed the District Court's dismissal
(based on the District Court's declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction) of the state-law claims against all defendants.  On
October 1, 2010, the remaining defendants, including the XL
Defendants, filed motions to dismiss the remanded federal claims
and the state-law claims.  The motions were fully briefed in
November 2010.  In May 2011, a majority of the remaining
defendants, including the XL Defendants, executed a formal
Settlement Agreement with the Class Action plaintiffs to settle
the Class Action and dismiss all claims with prejudice.  The
settlement was approved by the District Court by Order dated March
30, 2012.  The XL Defendants' portion of the defendants' aggregate
settlement payment is $6.75 million.  Certain objectors have filed
appeals from the District Court's March 30, 2012 Order approving
the settlement.

Various XL entities have been named as defendants in three of the
many tag-along actions that were consolidated into the MDL for
pretrial purposes.  The complaints in these tag-along actions make
allegations similar to those made in the Amended Complaint but do
not purport to be class actions.  On April 4, 2006, a tag-along
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of New Cingular Wireless
Headquarters LLC and several other corporations and remains
pending against approximately 100 defendants, including Greenwich
Insurance Company, XL Specialty Insurance Company, XL Insurance
America, Inc., XL Insurance Company Limited and XL-Cayman.  On or
about May 21, 2007, a tag-along complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of Henley
Management Company, Big Bear Properties, Inc., Northbrook
Properties, Inc., RCK Properties, Inc., Kitchens, Inc., Aberfeldy
LP and Payroll and Insurance Group, Inc. against multiple
defendants, including "XL Winterthur International."

On October 12, 2007, a complaint in a third tag-along action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia by Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears Holdings Corporation, Kmart
Corporation and Lands' End Inc. against many named defendants
including X.L. America, Inc., XL Insurance America, Inc., XL
Specialty Insurance Company and XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd.  On
October 17, 2011, the District Court lifted the stay of the tag-
along actions, including the three in which the XL entities are
named defendants.  On April 30, 2012, the District Court set a
pre-trial litigation schedule governing the tag-along actions.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and it is
anticipated that the defendants will file and brief over the next
few months various threshold motions directed to plaintiffs'
complaints.

XL Group plc -- http://www.xlgroup.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance coverages to
industrial, commercial, and professional firms, as well as
insurance companies and other enterprises worldwide. The Company
operates in three segments: Insurance, Reinsurance, and Life
Operations.  The Company is headquartered in Dublin 2, Ireland.


* Beyond Blue to Launch Discrimination Suit v. Insurance Cos.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Feely, writing for 3AW, reports that Beyond Blue chairman
Jeff Kennett has issued a warning to insurance companies to expect
a class action over discrimination against people with depression
and mental illness.

Speaking with Justin Smith, the former Premier revealed the
organization had been trying to work with insurance companies for
around eight years to stop them from making their policies void in
the event of a depressive or mental illness, but they had not
received any cooperation from the industry.

"I think you can expect Beyond Blue to be launching a legal action
against the insurance industry on a basis of discrimination,"
Mr. Kennett said.

"We have briefed government and the opposition that in fact there
is a very real likelihood that early next year we are going to
launch a legal action against the insurance industry for
discriminating against people who are just being themselves.

"I have no doubt we'll be successful and it will be a bipartisan
approach by all the political parties."

Mr. Kennett said next year people could expect to hear an appeal
for those who had been discriminated against by insurance
companies to come forward to join a class action.

"It's an attitude they have that gives them to opportunity to
renege on a payout," he said.

"We don't think that's right, we think it's discriminatory and we
want to give those who pay the premiums a fair go."


* Supreme Ct. May Impose Stricter Class Certification Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Grover LLP's Carey Been, a San Francisco consumer
protection lawyer, on Dec. 19 reported that it seems that little
by little, consumers are losing their rights when battling
companies in courts of law as the United States Supreme Court is
set to determine if stricter requirements should be imposed on the
certification of class actions in federal courts.

The Supreme Court justices are using two separate cases as
platforms to determine whether district judges must use stricter
standards when certifying class actions.  In one case, Amgen Inc.
v. Connecticut Retirement Plans, No. 11-1085, the Court is
considering whether plaintiffs should be required to prove that
the defendant made material misstatements of fact to investors
before, instead of after, a securities fraud class action can be
certified.  In the other case, Comcast v. Behrend, No. 11-864, the
Court is considering whether Daubert standards of admissibility
should apply to expert testimony at class certification hearings,
Fortune.com reports.

In Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, a case in which the Supreme Court
overturned the class certification of an employment discrimination
lawsuit because the plaintiffs did not have enough common evidence
to pursue their claims in a single lawsuit, the Supreme Court
foreshadowed the possibility of increasingly strict class
certification standards in federal courts.  Now in the Amgen and
Comcast cases, the Supreme Court will likely expand on the future
of how class action certification will be awarded.

In the Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans case, Amgen was
accused of making materially false statements about the safety of
two drugs that stimulate red blood cell production, reducing the
need for transfusions, which allegedly inflated the Amgen's stock
price.  The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit, relying
on the "fraud on the market presumption," agreed that the question
of whether the statements were materially false, in other words
that the statements affected the stock price, was a question that
needed to be decided by the court after class certification at
trial.  The question for the Supreme Court justices "is whether
the class plaintiffs, in order to rely on the so-called fraud-on-
the-market presumption, must prove the materiality of the
misrepresentations . . . at the certification stage as well as at
the merits stage," The National Law Journal reported.

In the Comcast v. Behrend case, Comcast is accused of engaging in
anti-competitive behavior, including acquisition and swaps, that
would monopolize the cable market and drive up prices.  Comcast
requested that the Supreme Court answer the question of how to
apply the decision in Wal-Mart to other settings.  Instead, the
justices changed the question to focus on whether a trial judge
must insist on "admissible evidence, including expert testimony,
to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a
classwide basis," the New York Times reported.

Both the Amgen case and the Comcast case have the potential to
significantly change how class certification is awarded in federal
courts.

At this time it is unknown when the justices will rule.


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had $23MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation, Union Electric Company, Ameren Illinois
Company and Ameren Energy Generating Company, at September 30,
2012, had liabilities of $23 million, $9 million, $14 million, and
$- million, respectively, recorded to represent their estimate of
their obligations related to 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.

Ameren, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois and EEI have been named,
along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each
case varies, with as many as 272 parties named in some pending
cases and as few as two in others. In the cases pending as of
September 30, 2012, the average number of parties was 80.

The claims filed against Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois allege injury from asbestos exposure during the
plaintiffs' activities at our present or former electric
generating plants. Certain former Ameren Illinois energy centers
are now owned by either Genco or AERG. As a part of the transfer
of energy center ownership in 2000 and 2003, Ameren Illinois
contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively,
for liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising
from activities prior to each transfer. Each lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be
shared among the various defendants.

The following table presents the pending asbestos-related lawsuits
filed against the Ameren Companies as of September 30, 2012:

   Ameren                4
   Ameren Missouri      74
   Ameren Illinois      93
   Genco (EEI unit) (b)  6

   Total(a)            120

   (a) Total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit
       lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren
       entities as defendants.

   (b) As of September 30, 2012, six asbestos-related lawsuits
       were pending against EEI. The general liability insurance
       maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
       liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims.

At September 30, 2012, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois
and Genco had liabilities of $23 million, $9 million, $14 million,
and $- million, respectively, recorded to represent their estimate
of their obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider which permits recovery from
customers within IP's historical service territory of asbestos-
related litigation claims that occurred within IP's historical
service territory. The rider can recover the costs of asbestos-
related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of
cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base
electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that was
established when Ameren acquired IP. At September 30, 2012, the
trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.

Ameren Corporation is a utility holding company. Ameren's
principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company (Ameren
Missouri), Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois) and Ameren
Energy Resources Company, LLC (AER).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Still Monitoring Grace Bankruptcy
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 1998, Sealed Air Corporation completed a multi-step
transaction (the "Cryovac transaction") involving W. R. Grace &
Co. which brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former
Sealed Air Corporation's business under the common ownership of
the Company. As part of that transaction, Grace and its
subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their
operations before the Cryovac transaction (including asbestos-
related liabilities), other than liabilities relating to Cryovac's
operations, and agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to
such retained liabilities. Since 2000, the Company has been served
with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the
Cryovac transaction, the Company is responsible for the alleged
asbestos liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries. While they
vary, these suits all appear to allege that the transfer of the
Cryovac business was a fraudulent transfer or gave rise to
successor liability. On April 2, 2001, Grace and certain of its
subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court"). In
connection with Grace's Chapter 11 case, the Bankruptcy Court
issued orders dated May 3, 2001 and January 22, 2002, staying all
asbestos actions against the Company. However, the official
committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace's
Chapter 11 case (the "Committees") received the court's permission
to pursue fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company
and its subsidiary Cryovac, Inc. based upon the Cryovac
transaction. This proceeding was brought in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court") (Adv.
No. 02-02210).

Sealed Air states: "On November 27, 2002, we reached an agreement
in principle with the Committees to resolve the fraudulent
transfer proceeding and all current and future asbestos-related
claims made against us and our affiliates in connection with the
Cryovac transaction. The Settlement agreement will also resolve
the fraudulent transfer claims and successor liability claims, as
well as indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings,
Inc. and affiliated companies in connection with the Cryovac
transaction. The parties to the agreement in principle signed the
definitive Settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003 consistent
with the terms of the agreement in principle. On June 27, 2005,
the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the definitive
Settlement agreement. Although Grace is not a party to the
Settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is
directed to comply with the Settlement agreement subject to
limited exceptions. On September 19, 2008, Grace, the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the Asbestos PI
Future Claimants' Representative, and the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Committee") filed, as co-
proponents, a plan of reorganization (as filed and amended from
time to time, the "PI Settlement Plan") and several exhibits and
associated documents, including a disclosure statement (as filed
and amended from time to time, the "PI Settlement Disclosure
Statement"), with the Bankruptcy Court. As filed, the PI
Settlement Plan would provide for the establishment of two
asbestos trusts under Section 524(g) of the United States
Bankruptcy Code to which present and future asbestos-related
claims would be channeled. The PI Settlement Plan also
contemplates that the terms of our definitive Settlement agreement
will be incorporated into the PI Settlement Plan and that we will
pay the amount contemplated by that agreement.

On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum
opinion (the "Bankruptcy Court Opinion") overruling certain
objections to the PI Settlement Plan. On the same date, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order regarding confirmation of the PI
Settlement Plan (the "Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order"). As
entered on January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation
Order contained recommended findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and recommended that the District Court approve the
Confirmation Order, and that the District Court confirm the PI
Settlement Plan and issue a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thereafter, on February 15, 2011,
the Bankruptcy Court issued an order clarifying the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order (the
"Clarifying Order"). Among other things, the Clarifying Order
provided that any references in the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and
the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order to a recommendation that
the District Court confirm the PI Settlement Plan were thereby
amended to make clear that the PI Settlement Plan was confirmed
and that the Bankruptcy Court was requesting that the District
Court issue and affirm the Confirmation Order including the
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. On
March 11, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting in
part and denying in part a motion to reconsider the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion filed by BNSF Railway Company (the "March 11
Order"). Among other things, the March 11 Order amended the
Bankruptcy Court Opinion to clarify certain matters relating to
objections to the PI Settlement Plan filed by BNSF.

"Various parties appealed or otherwise challenged the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order,
including without limitation with respect to issues relating to
releases and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan.

"On January 30, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum
opinion (the "Original District Court Opinion") and confirmation
order (the "Original District Court Confirmation Order")
overruling all objections to the PI Settlement Plan and confirming
the PI Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of
the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code). On
February 3, 2012, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("Garlock")
filed a motion (the "Garlock Reargument Motion") with the District
Court requesting that the District Court grant reargument,
rehearing, or otherwise amend the Original District Court Opinion
and the Original District Court Confirmation Order insofar as they
overruled Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement Plan. On
February 13, 2012, the Company, Cryovac, and Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc. filed a joint motion (the "Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion") with the District Court. The Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion did not seek to disturb confirmation of the
PI Settlement Plan but requested that the District Court amend and
clarify certain matters in the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order. Also on February
13, 2012, Grace and the other proponents of the PI Settlement Plan
filed a motion (the "Plan Proponents' Motion") with the District
Court requesting certain of the same amendments and clarifications
sought by the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion. On February 27, 2012,
certain asbestos claimants known as the "Libby Claimants" filed a
response to the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion and the Plan
Proponents' Motion (the "Libby Response"). The Libby Response did
not oppose the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the Plan Proponents'
Motion but indicated, among other things, that: (a) the Libby
Claimants had reached a settlement in principle of their
objections to the PI Settlement Plan but that this settlement had
not become effective and (b) the Libby Claimants reserved their
rights with respect to the PI Settlement Plan pending the
effectiveness of the Libby Claimants' settlement. On April 20,
2012, as part of a more global settlement, Grace filed a motion
with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, among other things, approval of
settlements with the Libby Claimants and BNSF. The settlements
with the Libby Claimants and BNSF were approved by order of the
Bankruptcy Court dated June 6, 2012. Thereafter, the appeals of
the Libby Claimants and BNSF with respect to the PI Settlement
Plan were dismissed by orders of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of
Appeals") dated September 24, 2012 and October 4, 2012. The
District Court held a hearing on May 8, 2012, to consider the
Garlock Reargument Motion. On May 29, 2012, Anderson Memorial
Hospital ("Anderson Memorial") filed a motion seeking relief from,
and reconsideration of, the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order (the "Anderson
Relief Motion"). In the Anderson Relief Motion, Anderson Memorial
argued that a May 18, 2012, decision by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in a case called Wright v. Owens-Corning undermined the
District Court's conclusion that (a) the PI Settlement Plan was
feasible and (b) the asbestos property damage injunction and trust
included in the PI Settlement Plan were appropriate. Objections to
the Anderson Relief Motion were filed by Grace and the other
proponents of the PI Settlement Plan, and by the representative of
future asbestos property damage claimants appointed in the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings. On June 11, 2012, the District Court
entered a consolidated order (the "Consolidated Order") granting
the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion, the Plan Proponents' Motion, and
the Garlock Reargument Motion, and providing for amendments to the
Original District Court Opinion and the Original District Court
Confirmation Order. Although the Consolidated Order granted the
Garlock Reargument Motion, it did not constitute the District
Court's agreement with Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement
Plan, which the District Court continued to overrule. Also on June
11, 2012, the District Court entered an amended memorandum opinion
(the "Amended District Court Opinion") and confirmation order (the
"Amended District Court Confirmation Order") overruling all
objections to the PI Settlement Plan, reflecting amendments
described in the Consolidated Order, and confirming the PI
Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of the
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).
Thereafter, on July 23, 2012, the District Court issued a
memorandum opinion and an order denying the Anderson Relief
Motion. Parties have appealed the Amended District Court Opinion
and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

"If it becomes effective, the PI Settlement Plan may implement the
terms of the Settlement agreement, but there can be no assurance
that this will be the case notwithstanding the confirmation of the
PI Settlement Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.
The terms of the PI Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment.
Moreover, the PI Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of
a number of conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI
Settlement Plan and include, without limitation, the availability
of exit financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan
becoming final and no longer subject to appeal. Parties have
appealed the Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals or otherwise challenged the Amended
District Court Opinion and the Amended District Court Confirmation
Order. Matters relating to the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy
and Amended District Court Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and
Amended District Court Confirmation Orders may be subject to
further appeal, challenge, and proceedings before the District
Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or other courts.
Parties have designated various issues to be considered in
challenging the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended
District Court Opinions, or the Bankruptcy and Amended District
Court Confirmation Orders, including, without limitation, issues
relating to releases and injunctions contained in the PI
Settlement Plan.

"Although Grace publicly indicated its intent to seek to emerge
from bankruptcy before the appeals are fully and finally resolved,
it subsequently indicated that it was not able to receive the
necessary consents and waivers to do so, including from the
Company. Grace has further indicated that, with an appeals process
before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, its target date to
emerge from bankruptcy is the fourth quarter of 2013; however,
there can be no assurance that this timing for emergence will be
correct. Consistent with our Settlement agreement, we are prepared
to pay the Settlement amount directly to the asbestos trusts to be
established under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code once the
conditions of the Settlement agreement are fully satisfied. Among
those conditions is that approval of an appropriate Grace
bankruptcy plan -- containing all releases, injunctions, and
protections required by the Settlement agreement -- be final and
not subject to any appeal. Given the pending appeals (which
include, without limitation, challenges to the injunctions and
releases in the PI Settlement Plan), the condition that approval
of the PI Settlement Plan be final and not subject to any appeal
has not been satisfied at this time. The Company has not waived
this, or any other, condition of the Settlement agreement nor can
there be any assurance that each of the parties whose consent or
waiver is required for Grace to emerge from bankruptcy while the
appeals are pending will provide such consent or waiver.

"While the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have confirmed
the PI Settlement Plan, we do not know whether or when the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals will affirm the Amended District Court
Confirmation Order or the Amended District Court Opinion, whether
or when the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Opinions or the
Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation Orders will
become final and no longer subject to appeal, or whether or when a
final plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or
another plan of reorganization) will become effective. Assuming
that a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement
Plan or another plan of reorganization) is confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and does become
effective, we do not know whether the final plan of reorganization
will be consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement or
if the other conditions to our obligation to pay the Settlement
agreement amount will be met. If these conditions are not
satisfied or not waived by us, we will not be obligated to pay the
amount contemplated by the Settlement agreement. However, if we do
not pay the Settlement agreement amount, we and our affiliates
will not be released from the various claims against us. We will
continue to review and monitor the progress of the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings (including appeals and other proceedings
relating to the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended
District Court Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended District
Court Confirmation Orders), as well as any amendments or changes
to the PI Settlement Plan or to Bankruptcy and Amended District
Court Opinions and Confirmation Orders, to verify compliance with
the Settlement agreement.

"If the Settlement agreement does not become effective, either
because Grace fails to emerge from bankruptcy or because Grace
does not emerge from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization that
is consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement, then we
and our affiliates will not be released from the various asbestos-
related, fraudulent transfer, successor liability, and
indemnification claims made against us and our affiliates, and all
of these claims would remain pending and would have to be resolved
through other means, such as through agreement on alternative
settlement terms or trials. In that case, we could face
liabilities that are significantly different from our obligations
under the Settlement agreement. We cannot estimate at this time
what those differences or their magnitude may be. In the event
these liabilities are materially larger than the current existing
obligations, they could have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial condition or results of operations."

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

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection. The Company serves a
range of end markets including food and beverage processing, food
service, retail, health care and industrial, commercial and
consumer applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Had 1,163 Pending Cases End Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2012, of the 3,335 asbestos cases brought
against Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, 1,163 remain
pending.  Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson,
2,017 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by
Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 155 cases.  Central
Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the remaining
asbestos lawsuits; however, based on information known to Central
Hudson at this time, including Central Hudson's experience in
settling asbestos cases and in obtaining dismissals of asbestos
cases, Central Hudson believes that the costs which may be
incurred in connection with the remaining lawsuits will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position, results of
operations or cash flows of either CH Energy Group or Central
Hudson.

No further updates were reported in CH Energy Group, Inc., and
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012.

CH Energy Group, Inc. is a holding company. The Company's wholly
owned subsidiaries include Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation (Central Hudson) and Central Hudson Enterprises
Corporation (CHEC). Central Hudson is a regulated electric and
natural gas subsidiary. CHEC, the parent company of CH Energy
Group's unregulated businesses and investments, has one wholly
owned subsidiary, Griffith Energy Services, Inc. (Griffith).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Continues to Monitor Fibro Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s losses and loss
adjustment expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2012
included $3.8 million of net unfavorable loss reserve development
on prior accident years primarily due to $5.5 million of
unfavorable development in asbestos, primarily resulting from
increased defense costs, and $1.7 million of unfavorable
development for other latent lines. Partially offsetting the
unfavorable development was $3.4 million in net favorable
development primarily attributable to the run-off workers
compensation lines. Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
three months ended September 30, 2011 included $6.3 million of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years
primarily due to $9.7 million of unfavorable development in
asbestos and environmental, partially offset by favorable
development in other lines.

Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2012 included $6.0 million of net unfavorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years primarily attributable
to the asbestos lines, partially offset by favorable development
within the run-off workers compensation lines.

Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2011 included $3.5 million of net unfavorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years. This unfavorable
development is primarily due to $11.7 million of unfavorable
development in asbestos and environmental, partially offset by the
collection of a contribution settlement from another insurer for a
California workers compensation indemnity claim, and favorable
development in other lines. The asbestos and environmental
unfavorable development is primarily attributable to $8.2 million
for asbestos losses driven by increasing severities, defense costs
and the settlement of a disputed reinsurance recoverable matter,
and $3.5 million for environmental losses driven by one
significant environmental claim.

Management regularly monitors and evaluates the activity of our
asbestos and environmental liability exposures and adjustments to
the reserves may be recorded during any reporting period.

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

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., is an international
underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the
property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Had $436.8MM Loss Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., at September 30, 2012, had gross asbestos
loss reserves of $436.8 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.

Asbestos and Environmental Exposures (A&E) exposures represent a
separate exposure group for monitoring and evaluating reserve
adequacy.

The Company states: "At September 30, 2012, the gross reserves for
A&E losses were comprised of $141.6 million representing case
reserves reported by ceding companies, $91.0 million representing
additional case reserves established by us on assumed reinsurance
claims, $42.5 million representing case reserves established by us
on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and
$180.5 million representing IBNR reserves.

"With respect to asbestos only, at September 30, 2012, we had
gross asbestos loss reserves of $436.8 million, or 95.9%, of total
A&E reserves, of which $347.9 million was for assumed business and
$88.9 million was for direct business.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival
ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 7.4 years at September 30,
2012.  These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments.

"Because the survival ratio was developed as a comparative measure
of reserve strength and does not indicate absolute reserve
adequacy, we consider, but do not rely on, the survival ratio when
evaluating our reserves.  In particular, we note that year to year
loss payment variability can be material.  This is due, in part,
to our orientation to negotiated settlements, particularly on our
Mt. McKinley exposures, which significantly reduces the
credibility and utility of this measure as an analytical tool.  In
the first nine months of 2012, we made asbestos net claim payments
of $2.4 million to Mt McKinley high profile claimants where the
claim was either closed or a settlement had been reached.  Such
payments, which are non-repetitive, distort downward our three
year survival ratio.  Adjusting for such settlements, recognizing
that total settlements are generally considered fully reserved to
an agreed settlement, we consider that our adjusted asbestos
survival ratio for net unsettled claims is 8.6 years, which is
better than prevailing industry norms."

Everest Re Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, is principally
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Units Continue to Defend Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries continue to defend
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "Some of our U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court
informal claims pending in the U.S. and the U.K. Plaintiffs claim
damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure
to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed
by our subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier.

United States

At September 30, 2012, there were 124,600 open asbestos claims
while total asbestos-related liabilities were $259,584,000.

"We have worked with Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation, or
ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the U.S. with respect
to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount of
asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end
based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have
recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent
with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. Our estimated asbestos
liability decreased during the first nine months of 2012 as a
result of indemnity and defense cost payments totaling
approximately $40,700,000 partially offset by an increase of
$6,000,000 related to the accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos-
related liability estimate. The total asbestos-related liabilities
are comprised of our estimates for our liability relating to open
(outstanding) claims being valued and our liability for future
unasserted claims through the third quarter of 2027.

"Our liability estimate is based upon the following information
and/or assumptions: number of open claims, forecasted number of
future claims, estimated average cost per claim by disease type --
mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies -- and the
breakdown of known and future claims into disease type --
mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies, as well as other
factors. The total estimated liability, which has not been
discounted for the time value of money, includes both the estimate
of forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense costs.
Total defense costs and indemnity liability payments are estimated
to be incurred through the third quarter of 2027, during which
period the incidence of new claims is forecasted to decrease each
year. We believe that it is likely that there will be new claims
filed after the third quarter of 2027, but in light of
uncertainties inherent in long-term forecasts, we do not believe
that we can reasonably estimate the indemnity and defense costs
that might be incurred after the third quarter of 2027.

Through September 30, 2012, total cumulative indemnity costs paid,
prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately $789,300,000 and
total cumulative defense costs paid were approximately
$383,600,000, or approximately 33% of total defense and indemnity
costs. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense
cost per resolved claim through September 30, 2012 has been
approximately $3,200. The average cost per resolved claim is
increasing and we believe it will continue to increase in the
future.

"Over the last several years, certain of our subsidiaries have
entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make
lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by our
subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs
and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of out-of-
pocket costs previously incurred. During the first nine months of
2011, our subsidiaries reached agreements with certain of their
insurers to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance
coverage. As a result of these settlements, we increased our
asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded settlement gains.
Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with
insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts
and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are
recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable.
Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes our
best estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating
to our liability for pending and estimated future asbestos claims
through the third quarter of 2027. Our asbestos-related assets
have not been discounted for the time value of money.

"Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies
among our insurers. Other than receivables related to bankruptcy
court-approved settlements during liquidation proceedings, we have
not assumed recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related
insurance asset from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We
have considered the financial viability and legal obligations of
our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and believe that the insurers
or their guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant
portion of claims and defense costs relating to asbestos
litigation. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we
have not recorded an allowance for uncollectible balances against
our asbestos-related insurance assets. We write-off receivables
from insurers that have become insolvent; there have been no such
write-offs during the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and
2011. During 2011, we reached an agreement with an insurer that
was under bankruptcy liquidation and for which we had written-off
our receivable prior to 2011. The asset awarded under the
bankruptcy liquidation for this insurer was $4,500,000 and was
included in our asbestos-related assets as of December 31, 2011.
This receivable was subsequently collected during the first nine
months of 2012. Other insurers may become insolvent in the future
and our insurers may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us on a
timely basis. If we fail to realize the expected insurance
recoveries, or experience delays in receiving material amounts
from our insurers, our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

"We expect to have net cash outflows of $8,300,000 during the full
year 2012 as a result of asbestos liability indemnity and defense
payments in excess of insurance proceeds. This estimate assumes no
additional settlements with insurance companies and no elections
by us to fund additional payments. As we continue to collect cash
from insurance settlements and assuming no increase in our
asbestos-related insurance liability, the asbestos-related
insurance receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet
will continue to decrease.

"The estimate of the liabilities and assets related to asbestos
claims and recoveries is subject to a number of uncertainties that
may result in significant changes in the current estimates. Among
these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of
claims filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact of
bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos claims,
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, as well as potential
legislative changes. Increases in the number of claims filed or
costs to resolve those claims could cause us to increase further
the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.

"Based on our December 31, 2011 liability estimate, an increase of
25% in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would
increase the liability by $47,700,000 and the impact on expense
would be dependent upon available additional insurance recoveries.
Assuming no change to the assumptions currently used to estimate
our insurance asset, this increase would result in a charge on our
consolidated statement of operations of approximately 80% of the
increase in the liability. Long-term cash flows would ultimately
change by the same amount. Should there be an increase in the
estimated liability in excess of 25%, the percentage of that
increase that would be expected to be funded by additional
insurance recoveries will decline.

United Kingdom

"Some of our subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have also received
claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos.
To date, 1,018 claims have been brought against our U.K.
subsidiaries, of which 300 remained open as of September 30, 2012.
None of the settled claims have resulted in material costs to us.

"Our asbestos-related liabilities for our U.K. subsidiaries based
on open (outstanding) claims at September 30, 2012, were
$28,058,000.

"The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury and accordingly, we have reduced our liability assessment.
If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos
liability recorded in the U.K. would increase to approximately
$41,800, with a corresponding increase in the asbestos-related
asset."

Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global
Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its
Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the
Company also reports corporate center expenses, its captive
insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities,
such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group).
Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil
refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental,
metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and
maintenance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend Active Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. continues to defend active
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability. We intend to
vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we
defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted, and therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a provider of power
generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the
domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and
service industries. The Company, along with its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and auxiliary
power equipment primarily used in the operation of gas turbine
power plants, as well as for other industrial and power-related
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of
Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not
clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that,
to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with
these claims. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of
the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any
warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were
determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it
could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

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

Houston Wire & Cable Company provides wire and cable and related
services to the United States market. The Company offers its
customers with a single-source solution for wire and cable,
hardware and related services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lloyd E. Mitchell, Insurers May Execute Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Casualty Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company, Debtor
Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., and the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos,
P.C. on behalf of certain clients with asbestos-related claims
filed a joint consent motion for relief from the automatic stay to
permit them to perform their obligations under and to implement a
settlement agreement.

The Debtor is a Maryland corporation that formerly operated a
mechanical contracting business in the Baltimore metropolitan
area.  Since it ceased operations in 1976 and liquidated its
operating assets, it has been primarily consumed by defending
against asbestos-related personal injury claims and dealing with
insurance coverage issues relating thereto.  The extent to which
insurance policies written by Maryland Casualty provide coverage
for asbestos claims is the subject of litigation in the Circuit
Court for Harford County, Maryland.  Additional parties have
joined in the Harford County Litigation in order to preserve and
protect their rights, including a putative class of asbestos
personal injury claimants, as well as additional insurers.  The
Harford County Litigation is in some state of being certified as a
class action lawsuit.

In a decision dated Nov. 29, 2012, Judge Nancy V. Alquist of the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland
granted the stay relief motion after finding that the settlement
agreement is fair in context of the matters before the Harford
County Court.  Balancing the factors, including good faith,
fairness, the parties contractual and other legal rights and the
potential risks and prejudice to all parties, the Court found that
the Movants have shown they are entitled to relief from stay in
order to consummate the settlement agreement, including the
payment of the agreed amount of the claims.

The case In re: LLOYD E. MITCHELL, INC., Chapter 11, Debtor, Case
No. 06-13250-NVA (D. Md.).  A copy of Judge Alquist's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/CJO4E9from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Remands Letcher v. Ford, et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy and Bernard Letcher sued Ford Motor Company, and more than
20 other defendants in the Baltimore City Circuit Court alleging
that the Defendants unlawfully exposed Plaintiffs to asbestos-
containing products.  Ford timely filed a Notice of Removal and
removed the matter to federal court pursuant to Sections 1441 and
1446 of Title 28 of the United States Code on the basis of
"federal enclave jurisdiction."  In the Notice of Removal, Ford
states that Defendant John Crane, Inc., "is the only Defendant in
this proceeding that has not joined or consented to Ford's removal
of this case to federal court.  Defendant Crane, however, is only
a nominal Defendant in the action. Its consent to the removal,
therefore, is not required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b)(2)(A)."

The Plaintiffs seek remand of the action to state court.

In a memorandum and order dated Nov. 28, 2012, Judge Marvin J.
Garbis of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland ruled that the case must be remanded due to the failure
of Defendant Crane to join in or consent to removal.  Judge Garbis
pointed out that Ford has failed to demonstrate that Defendant
Crane is a "nominal party" whose failure to consent to removal is
immaterial.  According to Judge Garbis, Ford sweepingly contends
that Defendant Crane is a nominal party because it is legally
impossible for the Plaintiffs' to recover against it where
discovery is closed and "no evidence has been presented by the
Plaintiffs that Mrs. Letcher was exposed to an asbestos containing
product manufactured or supplied by John Crane."

"[A] nominal party contention does not require (or, perhaps not
even allow) the federal court to embark upon an in-depth
investigation of the record evidence pertinent to Defendant
Crane's liability to Plaintiffs or assume jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims for the purpose of weighing the evidence
against Defendant Crane and making a full ruling on the merits
. . .  This Court is not now deciding the pending Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Crane.  Indeed, even if the
Court were to conclude that it would grant the motion and award
Defendant Crane summary judgment, that would not mean that
Defendant Crane was a nominal party. Rather the Court is deciding,
on the record before it, whether there is at least a 'slight
possibility' or a 'glimmer of hope' that Plaintiffs might prevail
against Defendant Crane.  As shown herein, there is at least that
level of viability, even if no more, to Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Crane," Judge Garbis ruled.

The case is DOROTHY and BERNARD LETCHER, Plaintiffs, v. AC and S,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. MJG-12-3051 (D. Md.).
A copy of Judge Garbis' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AdESrEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Court Affirms Ruling Favoring Union Carbide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Holcomb and his wife, Tamara, filed a complaint against
joint-compound manufacturers Bondex International, Inc., and
related companies; Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.; Kaiser Gypsum
Company, Inc.; and Georgia Pacific, LLC, asbestos supplier Union
Carbide Corporation, and various automotive brake product
manufacturers, distributers, and sellers.  They alleged that
Holcomb's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos
contained in those parties' products, which Holcomb used for
several years while working as a construction laborer and as an
automotive mechanic.  The personal injury complaint sounded in
negligence and strict products liability, and it included a claim
for loss of consortium.  After Holcomb died in December 2008, the
complaint was amended to include a wrongful death claim by Tamara
Holcomb, individually and as the representative of Randy Holcomb's
estate, and by their children, appellants Billy Joe Holcomb,
Joseph Holcomb, Shelly Holcomb, and Kelly Miller.

The joint-compound and automotive-brake defendants separately
moved for summary judgment.  The district court granted summary
judgment to the joint-compound defendants.  The Plaintiffs then
filed an appeal for the Supreme Court of Nevada to examine the
causation tests that courts have implemented when a plaintiff's or
decedent's mesothelioma is alleged to have been caused by exposure
to a defendant's asbestos-containing products.

In a decision dated Dec. 6, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed with
the majority view and adopted the test set forth in Lohrmann v.
Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986), as that
test is explained in Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc., 943 A.2d 216,
225 (Pa. 2007), for mesothelioma cases.  Under the Lohrmann test,
the plaintiff is required to prove exposure to the defendant's
product "on a regular basis over some extended period of time" and
"in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked," such that
it is probable, or reasonable to infer, that the exposure caused
the mesothelioma.

In light of that standard, the Supreme Court then determined
whether the Appellants submitted sufficient causation evidence to
raise triable issues of material fact regarding whether, in this
case, the decedent's mesothelioma was probably caused by the
respondents' products.  In doing so, the Supreme Court concluded
that the Appellants presented sufficient evidence to defeat
summary judgment as to respondents Kelly-Moore, Kaiser Gypsum, and
Georgia Pacific, but not as to respondent Union Carbide.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment in
Union Carbide's favor but reversed the summary judgment as to the
remaining respondents.

The case is TAMARA HOLCOMB; BILLY JOE HOLCOMB; JOSEPH HOLCOMB;
SHELLY HOLCOMB; AND KELLY MILLER, Appellants, v. GEORGIA PACIFIC,
LLC; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC.;
AND UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Respondents, No. 56510 (Nev.).  A
copy of the Supreme Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Il2dztfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellants are represented by:

         Michael K. Wall, Esq.
         HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, LLC
         Peccole Professional Park
         10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
         Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
         Tel: (702) 385-2500

              - and -

         Paul C. Cook, Esq.
         WATERS, KRAUS & PAUL
         222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1900
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Tel: (310) 414-8146
         Fax: (310) 414-8156

Union Carbide is represented by:

         Mary Price Birk, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
         303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 1100
         Denver, CO 80203-1264
         Tel: (303) 764.4041
         E-mail: mbirk@bakerlaw.com

Georgia Pacific, Kaiser Gypsum, and Kelly-Moore are represented
by:

         Daniel F. Polsenberg, Esq.
         LEWIS & ROCA, LLP
         3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 600
         Las Vegas, NV 89169
         Tel: (702) 474-2616
         Fax: (702) 216-6174
         Email: DPolsenberg@LRLaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montevallo School Changes Leader Amid Toxic Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin J. Reed of Alabama Live (al.com) reports that the Shelby
County Board of Education on Dec. 20 approved the hiring of
Allison Campbell as the new principal of Montevallo Elementary
School, which recently closed under an emergency action to correct
mold and asbestos issues.

"I appreciate your vote of confidence and I am extremely excited"
about the opportunity, Campbell said after the board's unanimous
vote during its meeting at the district offices in Columbiana.

She said she is looking forward to building partnerships with
parents, city leaders and others in the community.  "I look
forward to making Montevallo Elementary the best it can be," she
said.

Campbell is replacing Annie McClain who is retiring from her
position, according to school officials.  Jim Miller, assistant
superintendent of human resources, said the board accepted
McClain's resignation in September or October, but the action had
been anticipated for roughly a year.

The change in leadership is happening as Montevallo Elementary has
become ground zero for health concerns among parents, students and
others due to mold contamination, asbestos worries and even snakes
found in the building.

The school district announced the closure of the building on Dec.
12 after the latest air quality tests showed black mold levels
generating concern in different parts of the facility previously
untested.

The district is keeping the building closed until at least Jan. 2
in order to conduct a thorough cleaning and perform other work
associated with mold and other health issues.

Speaking to reporters tonight, Campbell said she is ready to take
on the challenge of leading the school in light of the health
concerns. "I have 100 percent confidence in the central office
leadership and what they're doing," she said.

Campbell has 13 years of experience in public education in Shelby
County as a teacher and assistant principal. She most recently has
been the assistant principal at Calera Intermediate School for
five years.

She also taught for four years at Vincent Elementary and another
four years at Columbiana Middle School.

Campbell has a bachelor's of science degree in early childhood and
elementary education, a master's degree in educational leadership
and an education specialist degree in leadership, all from the
University of Montevallo.

She earned her doctorate of education degree in educational
leadership from Samford University in 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Transportation Wins Verdict on Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of The West Virginia Record reports that a jury has
found two members of a former Pittsburgh law firm engaged in
racketeering when they conspired with a Bridgeport radiologist to
fabricate asbestos claims.

The verdict, reached Dec. 20, comes more than seven years after
CSX Transportation filed its lawsuit against the former firm
Peirce, Raimond & Coulter.  CSX alleged that many plaintiffs with
fraudulent asbestos claims were diagnosed by Ray Harron, who was
found by a Texas federal judge in 2005 to have created fraudulent
silica claims and lost his license in 2007.

A jury found for CSX on its claims of racketeering, conspiracy and
fraud against Robert Peirce, Louis Raimond and Ray Harron.

"We offer heartfelt thanks to the jury for its commitment to
ensuring the integrity of our system of justice," said Marc
Williams -- marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- an attorney with
the Huntington firm Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough who
represented CSX.

CSX was also represented by the firm McGuire Woods, which has an
office in Richmond, Va.  Should the defendants appeal the
decision, it will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit in Richmond.

CSX's original complaint said Robert Peirce's firm hid nine
fraudulent claims among other lawsuits filed by the law firm in
West Virginia.

The nine lawsuits were filed and settled from 2000-2006. U.S.
District Judge Frederick Stamp granted summary judgment to the
Peirce firm in 2009, ruling a four-year statute of limitations
began when the Peirce firm began targeting CSX.

However, nearly two years ago, the Fourth Circuit overturned that
decision and gave new life to the lawsuit.  The U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear the Peirce firm's appeal of the decision.

CSX amended its complaint to include additional claims it said
were fraudulent.  The Peirce firm filed counterclaims against the
company that said it was engaging in fraud by bringing and
conducting the lawsuit.

The trial began Dec. 11.  When it completed, the eight-person jury
deliberated for two-and-a-half hours before returning five
unanimous verdicts in favor of CSX.

The first three were its claims against the two members of the
Peirce firm and Harron.  The jury ruled against the Peirce firm's
counterclaims.

The jury awarded CSX $469,000, an amount that could be tripled
because of its finding on CSX's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization (RICO) Act claims.

CSX will need to submit a motion for attorneys fees, also.  A
similar case in Mississippi in which two asbestos attorneys were
found to have committed fraud against Illinois Central Railroad
has seen a lengthy battle over attorneys fees.

In 2005, federal court judge Janis Graham Jack made national
headlines when she uncovered duplicate and fraudulent silica
diagnoses in her Texas courtroom.  Many of those diagnoses were
made by Harron and were made on plaintiffs who had already brought
asbestos claims.

In Jack's opinion dismissing the claims, she said "These diagnoses
were driven by neither health nor justice -- they were
manufactured for money."

Following Harron's admission that he did not even make the
diagnoses of the patients whose x-rays he read, Jack noted that
most of "these diagnoses are more the creation of lawyers than
doctors."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charleston Fire Victims' Stuff Held for Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keke Collins for WCSC's Live 5 News reports that residents of
Bridgeview Village Apartments who were displaced after a fire
ripped through several units have not been able to return to
collect their belongings due to an asbestos outbreak that was
exposed after the fire, according to the property owner.

Five weeks have passed since flames tore through several units of
the Bridgeview Village Apartments in downtown Charleston, leaving
seven families without a home.  The fire impacted eight units.

Michael Snowdon, Vice President of Highridge Costa Housing, LLC,
says the fire exposed asbestos in three apartments.  State law
requires the company to hire a contractor to perform testing on
all eight units before residents can claim their belongings.

A spokesperson with the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control says foot traffic is discouraged during the
testing process, as it could cause the asbestos particles to
spread.

Some displaced residents say they are growing increasingly
frustrated, because they were not originally told why they were
unable to collect their belongings left behind after the blaze at
103 Romney Street.

"You can see my shoes in that plastic container . . . it's like my
whole life right there . . . everything I own," said Rosalind
Miller.

She may own these items, but Miller says the clean-up crew has
been instructed by the apartment building's owner to hold onto
them for liability reasons, because her apartment was contaminated
by asbestos.

The company plans to give her a check for $1,000 after her
belongings were determined to be contaminated.  They will be
disposed of by a clean-up crew.

Miller, along with another displaced neighbor, Sherry Capers, say
they originally tried to contact apartment management a number of
times in person and via letter to see if they could claim their
belongs, but each time there request was denied.

Capers said she felt invisible, "As far as the property manager is
concerned, she is not willing to speak with us . . . the apartment
staff would not speak with me either . . . I was referred to the
complex owner but have yet to receive a response."

Snowdon says those who occupied units where the asbestos testing
came back negative will be able to retrieve their items soon.

The cause of the Nov. 12 fire is still undetermined, according to
the Charleston Fire Department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BC Ferries Audit Reports Fibro Issues on Vessels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew MacLeod for The Tyee (Canada) reports that a BC Ferries
official worried in an email that continued problems with asbestos
would leave the publicly owned company vulnerable to a CAD150,000
fine if its management of the material again comes to WorkSafe
BC's attention.

In 2010 the cafeteria on the Queen of Burnaby, running between
Comox and Powell River, was temporarily closed while WorkSafe BC
investigated and BC Ferries conducted tests on loose material.
Inhaled asbestos fibers can cause various often fatal diseases,
including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Documents released on Dec. 20 under a freedom of information
request by the B.C. Coastal Transportation Society show asbestos
continued to be a concern two years later on the Queen of Burnaby
and other vessels, including inaccurate labeling of where it is
present.

"I am concerned re the decaling issue on the ship not reflecting
the inventory report," wrote Kathleen Aslett, BC Ferries' manager
of occupational safety and health in a June 18, 2012 email about
the Queen of Burnaby's asbestos safety audit.

"This was a major issue that was cited in the fine administered
against the ship in 2010 (and on the [Quadra Queen II]) so to see
that this remains a deficiency is troubling as a second inspection
by WSBC where this remains an issue will bring an automatic
CAD150,000 fine," she wrote to Darren Johnston, the executive
director of safety and security for BC Ferries.

"I cannot state how urgent this must be to get right.  I strongly
recommend that this be addressed without delay," Aslett said.

A Sept. 4, 2012 report summarized the asbestos audits on 10
vessels.  Seven of them had problems: the Queen of Alberni, the
Mayne Queen, the Bowen Queen, the North Island Princess, the
Tenaka, the Tachek and the Queen of Burnaby.

Besides decaling, problems included:

     -- "Emergency response kits either absent or missing key
components";

     -- "Crew unfamiliar with Emergency Response equipment and
duties";

     -- "Lack of understanding of company Safety Manual Emergency
Response Plan"; and

     -- "Dated Training; original contingency training is often
years ago and the lack of updated training or refresher training
being offered, seasoned crew find they are unprepared to respond
to a spill or failing ACM material incident with knowledge and
confidence."

A WorkSafe BC official did not immediately respond to questions.

In 2009 the Merchant Law Group filed a class action lawsuit
against BC Ferries on behalf of people exposed to asbestos on the
Quadra Queen II.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Takes Steps to Eliminate Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Davell Wilkins of TopNews reports that significant steps are being
taken by the Australian Government to wipe off asbestos from the
country.  The country realized the side effects of asbestos and
started phasing it out since 1970, and it even got banned in 2003,
but still its residue has been troubling people.

Asbestos has led to a rise in the number of mesothelioma cancer
cases.  The government has now pledged to take stern steps.
Health experts said those, who prefer renovating their homes
themselves, are the next victims of mesothelioma cancer.

Authorities concerned said that a separate establishment of the
Office of Asbestos Safety is going to be built.  It will be the
responsibility of the office to take all the steps to ensure that
asbestos gets removed from buildings.  Moreover, steps should be
taken to deal with increasing number of cancer cases.

Curtin researcher Delia Nelson said that the stress is on to find
effective ways to deal with cancer.  "In many instances, it is
difficult to surgically remove advanced mesothelioma tumors, and
current anti-cancer treatments such as chemotherapy generally only
prolong life for months, rather than years", said Nelson.

It now has to be seen, which steps are being taken by the
government to clear asbestos from the country.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOL Probes Webster Village Hall Fibro Problem
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrat and Chronicle reports that the state Department of
Labor is investigating the release of asbestos that has shuttered
Webster Village Hall for more than two weeks.

Village officials say that when employees were removing carpet as
part of a planned renovation, floor tiles contained asbestos
fibers were dislodged.  Village Hall was closed to the public and
employees, and cleanup by an asbestos abatement contractor has
just began.

Leo Rosales, spokesman for the labor department, which has
jurisdiction over asbestos abatement and also municipal employees'
health and safety, said the agency was looking into the incident.
He declined to elaborate.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which also has some
jurisdiction over asbestos work, was not informed of the Webster
matter and is not involved, spokesman John Martin said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Unsatisfied on Montevallo Fibro Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McClanahan for CBS24 News reports that outraged parents
aren't satisfied with plans to fix a mold problem and remove
asbestos from a Shelby County school.  Black mold forced
Montevallo Elementary to close its doors earlier than planned for
this Holiday break.

A school system spokesperson says while the mold problem is being
taken care of asbestos is also being removed, but not because of
any immediate health threat.  Cindy Warner says the asbestos floor
tiles that are being taken out are intact.

Weeks of worry over toxic black mold caused a number of parents to
pull their children out of Montevallo Elementary.  Now several say
the plan to remove the asbestos doesn't go far enough.

The mold clean up phase is complete according to Shelby County
Facilities Coordinator Ralph Reeves, but renovations continue.
The Shelby County Board of Education approved a waterproofing
contract and renovations that are meant to fix this permanently.
One mother of two students in the school says her children already
have respiratory problems and she wants more done.

"Other than the band-aids that we're getting we would like a
complete renovation of the HVAC systems versus just cleaning them.
It needs to be done," Stephanie Burns, PTO Shelby County Board
Liason.

"It worries me for their future that you know 30 years down the
line when they have families and they're grown and trying to make
a living that they may end up really sick because of an exposure.
And hopefully no one was aware of that," said PTO member Jennifer
Macomb.

The Superintendent of Shelby County Schools says they've known
asbestos was present and so has the EPA.

"Just in general there are several locations of asbestos
containing materials.  They are contained, we follow the EPA
standards we have them coming in every three years and doing a
report for us so we feel comfortable with the asbestos in the
building," said Supt. Randy Fuller.

Administrators are hoping to have the school ready to open in time
for the next semester.  Indoor air quality testing will be done
before then according to Fuller.

On Thursday, Dec. 20, the Shelby County BOE approved Dr. Allison
Campbell to be the next principal at Montevallo Elementary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Eyed to Take Up Ohio's Transparency Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Smith-Teutsch of Legal Newsline reports that with both
houses of the Ohio legislature approving HB 380 -- a bill that
will require plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits to disclose during
civil litigation claims they have filed with asbestos trust funds
-- legal observers are watching the law's development and
implementation with great interest.

"It is a long overdue and very positive first step," Kirk Hartley
-- khartley@gnarusllc.com -- of LSP Group LLC and Gnarus Advisors,
said.  Hartley, an attorney with more than 30 years' experience,
has handled asbestos and other product liability claims for
defendants, insurance coverage litigation for policyholders,
representation of creditors in mass tort Chapter 11 cases, amongst
other types of cases.

Called the "Asbestos Transparency Act," the law seeks to prevent
what some observers call double-dipping, but what Hartley refers
to as exploitation of simultaneous systems of compensation.

"This is about recognizing that there are two different sources of
compensation, and putting all of that information on the table,"
Hartley said.

The law requires plaintiffs in asbestos litigation to reveal
claims they've made for compensation from asbestos trust funds.
The legislation took the rare step of mandating the disclosure of
records that could be part of bankruptcy settlements and
agreements, which are normally protected by confidentiality.

"To our understanding (the law) is the first of its kind in the
country, but we are hoping additional states adopt comparable
laws," said Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform
Association.  "With the scandal that is double-dipping in the
court systems and in trust funds, a statutory response is the only
solution."

Reform of the so-called double dipping phenomenon will most likely
occur on the state level, he said.

There has been some activity on the federal level to regulate
asbestos-related torts; in April 2012, Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Arizona,
introduced the "Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency" or 'FACT'
Act of 2012, which would require quarterly disclosure by asbestos
trust funds of all claims, both filed and compensated.  While the
resolution was reported by committee, action was never taken by
the full House of Representatives.

Asbestos litigation has bankrupted 70-80 companies, McKinney said,
with more claims filed each year.  Asbestos cases are in some
states being filed against companies who did not work with
asbestos themselves, but are being held liable for the past
actions of asbestos-related companies years after the products
were marketed.  An estimated 60,000 jobs have been lost due to
asbestos-related bankruptcies.

"That is not saying anything against people who have legitimately
been injured by asbestos," McKinney said.  "But so many pending
cases are cases where the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos, but
cannot allege a demonstrable injury so far."

Ohio has held the position of bellwether for asbestos tort reform
before: in 2004, the state enacted legislation that required
plaintiffs in asbestos litigation show actual physical injury, a
move that resulted in 30,000 cases being dismissed from state
court dockets.  Legislatures in Florida, Georgia and Texas, soon
followed suit in enacting similar legislation, according to a
policy briefing published by the Buckeye Institute for Public
Policy Solutions.

One state where legislators are expected to take up the mantle of
transparency, Hartley said, is Illinois.  Madison County and St.
Clair County in Illinois account for at least one third of all
asbestos claims filed in the nation, a fact the U.S. Chamber
Institute for Legal Reform attributes to Illinois' broad venue
laws.

Legal Newsline is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform.

Illinois State Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon) has said he would
introduce a bill modeled after the Ohio legislation.

Hartley said he thinks the Ohio legislation is another step in the
slow progression of the reform of the American tort system.  Mass
litigation is being reformed, slowly and surely, into a system of
trust funds for payment of injury claims, he said.  He points to
the BP Deep Horizon oil drilling rig disaster and the
establishment of a trust fund to pay injury claims resulting from
the disaster.  Such parallel systems only work, however, with full
disclosure made of payments received.

"This goes far beyond asbestos," Hartley said.

The requirements set by the bill have the potential to be adapted
to other mass-tort environments where non-bankruptcy trusts have
been established, Hartley said: Chinese drywall, victims of the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, breast implants thalidomide and clergy
abuse liability trust funds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Problem in Essex Safety Building Minimal
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Niedzinski of The Gloucester Times reports that following up
on initial safety concerns, Essex town officials have discovered
asbestos in the town's fire and police station.

Town Administrator Brendhan Zubricki said that safety committee
members were curious to see if the building did have any asbestos,
considering it was built in the 1950s, and the town applied for a
grant from the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, the
town's insurance company.

The grant was approved, the town was allotted about $5,000, and
the survey was done by Covino Environmental Associates Inc., of
Woburn.

Two tests have been done so far.  The company sent officials to
gather initial results at the end of November, with a second visit
this month, Zubricki said.

He said he does not expect any asbestos to be removed, based on
initial conversations with officials from the environmental
company.

"Very minor things may just need to be done," he said.  "It's my
full expectation nothing needs to be removed."

Areas of the building affected by asbestos are not places people
frequent, he said, adding that a few pipes may just need to be
sealed up.  But the asbestos situation remains one of many
problems with the building.

Lisa O'Donnell, member of the Board of Selectmen as well as the
chairperson of the Building Committee, acknowledged that the
police and fire station have been in poor shape for quite some
time.

"The building has a lot of problems," she said, "the main one
being it's simply too small."

She said asbestos removal is a minimal problem in the building,
but a new public safety center would be more beneficial to
residents, as well as cheaper, instead of making numerous repairs
to the current building.

A new public safety building was recommended by Reinhardt and
Associates, an Agawam based consulting firm.  The company carried
out a feasibility study in September 2011, and had recommended
that the town develop such a complex on town-owned land off John
Wise Avenue.

Some problems outlined by Reinhardt include ventilation systems,
air quality and cracks in the floor and walls.

Town officials have addressed one major safety aspect, the fire
station's leaking roof.  Selectmen signed off on a $13,000
contract with Christopher Nunes Construction of Essex last week.
The contract was signed outside of a regular meeting, in order to
complete the project before heavy rainfall or snow is expected to
start.

Zubricki said Nunes offered the lowest of the three bids, the
others being $13,500 and $19,344.  The bids were submitted on Dec.
12.  Zubricki said at an earlier Board of Selectmen meeting,
construction is set to start when weather permits.

According to the scope of work statement posted on the town's
website, the work is set to be completed by Dec. 28.

In the meantime, Zubricki said he expects an update on the
asbestos condition by early January.

He added the Board of Selectmen are presently considering adding
this topic to the 2014 budget discussion.  Requests are due by
Jan. 10 and the Selectmen will finalize their submission on Jan. 7
of 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Partly Blamed for Burnley Man's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
The Lancashire Telegraph News (UK) reports that a job sweeping up
asbestos more than 50 years ago could have contributed to the
death of a Burnley man, an inquest heard.

Aged just 15, John Parton's role at Carson's Mill in Barnoldswick
involved him filling tubfuls of the substance, Burnley Coroner's
Court was told.

He never worked with the substance again, later joining the Army.

But earlier this year Mr. Parton, 68, of Mitella Street, developed
a malignant tumor in his lung.

Consultant pathologist Dr. Walid Salman said as well as the tumor
there was evidence of pulmonary fibrosis, where the lung tissue
begins to die.

His wife Enid Parton said although the couple smoked, they gave up
together around 20 years ago.

Mr. Parton had been complaining of shortness of breath, shortly
before his death last May.

Recording an industrial disease verdict, East Lancashire coroner
Richard Taylor said he considered the exposure to asbestos may
have been a contributory factor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Consultants Plead Guilty to HSE Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two asbestos surveyors have appeared in court after construction
workers were exposed to potentially deadly fibers during the
refurbishment of a Trafford pub.

David Harold and Shaun Hodgson were prosecuted by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) after they failed to identify the presence
of asbestos at 32 different locations in the former Sale Hotel on
Marsland Road in Sale.

Trafford Magistrates' Court was told on Dec. 21 that Mr. Harold,
49, and Mr. Hodgson, 32, were hired to carry out a full asbestos
survey at the disused pub ahead of a major refurbishment project
to bring it back into use.

They produced a report following a visit to the site on May 31,
2011, which was used by the principal contractor to identify which
areas were safe to refurbish and which required a licensed company
to remove asbestos before any work could take place.

However, the report failed to identify large amounts of asbestos
in the basement.  As a result, workers were exposed to potentially
deadly fibers as they carried out refurbishment work, installed
pipes and fitted cabling.

The company overseeing the project immediately stopped the
refurbishment work and brought in a specialist firm when one of
its employees raised concerns that additional unidentified
asbestos may be present in the basement.

The asbestos insulation material was not hidden, and was easily
spotted in the second survey.

David Harold, of Balmoral Drive in Beverley, East Yorkshire, and
Shaun Hodgson, of Sherbourne Cottages in Newton upon Derwent,
York, each pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974 after they put the health of workers at risk.

They were each ordered to carry out 40 hours of community service
in the next year and to each pay GBP1,500 towards the cost of the
prosecution.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Matt Greenly said:

"Asbestos consultants and surveyors perform a vitally important
role in the construction industry and are relied on to keep
workers safe.

"Construction companies trust their expert opinions to help
prevent workers from being exposed to asbestos fibers.  It's
therefore essential that they do not take their minds off the job
when carrying out asbestos surveys.

"Sadly Mr. Harold and Mr. Hodgson's work fell way below acceptable
standards, despite them being well trained and seemingly
experienced asbestos surveyors.

"It is hard to understand how they could have missed so much
asbestos material during their survey when it was so plainly
obvious to others."

Asbestos insulation was commonly used up until the 1980s to help
insulate pipes and structural steel within buildings.  This
insulation can become highly dangerous if it is unsealed or
disturbed and asbestos fibers are released into the air.

Fibers that are breathed in can become lodged in the lungs or
digestive tract, and may lead to lung cancer or other diseases if
large numbers of fibers are inhaled.  However, symptoms may not
appear for several decades.

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.  Information on how to work safely with
asbestos is available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anchorage Project Lets Friable Fibro Airborne
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Alaska company has been fined
$70,000 and placed on three years of probation for releasing
asbestos into the air in Anchorage.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Ralph R. Beistline on Monday,
Dec. 17, also ordered Copper River Campus to hire an environmental
consultant to make sure it commits no more violations.

Copper River Campus owns and manages buildings used by Copper
River Seafoods on East 5th Avenue.

The U.S. Attorney's Office says the company knew buildings
contained dangerous asbestos but ordered them to be demolished or
renovated in March 2010.

Inspectors from the Environmental Protection Agency halted the
work.  Prosecutors say the work put friable chrysotile asbestos --
the most common variety -- into the air.

No injuries were reported from the release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Money Saved on DOE Staff Relocation Due to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Munger of The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that as it
turns out, there's a little bit of a silver lining to the asbestos
problem at the Joe L. Evins Federal Building in Oak Ridge.

In June, the U.S. Department of Energy had to vacate the building
and relocate more than 300 employees after flaking asbestos was
discovered in the heating and air-conditioning system.  Despite
the hassle of moving employees and equipment into leased space or
other government facilities, the DOE is actually saving money.

According to DOE spokesman Mike Koentop, the agency normally pays
the General Services Administration $120,000 a month for rent at
the Federal Building, which has been the DOE's Oak Ridge field
quarters for decades.

However, after being forced to leave the Federal Building in June,
the DOE hasn't had to make those payments, and the rent paid
elsewhere is significantly less, Koentop said.

The leased space at 545 Oak Ridge Turnpike, where many of the DOE
workers are temporarily housed, costs $46,667 a month, he said,
and the rent at the Office of Scientific and Technical Information
on the east side of town costs $5,678 a month.

"We have employees located in other buildings that we own that do
not cost us rent," the DOE spokesman said.

All told, the Department of Energy is saving $67,655 per month in
rental costs, Koentop said, and those savings continue to mount.

After months of planning, the General Services Administration
recently awarded a cleanup contract to Katmai Support Services LLC
-- a company that was prequalified under GSA's umbrella contract
for construction and cleanup activities.

The procurement took a lot longer than expected, and GSA still
hasn't released the value of the contract because Katmai's cleanup
plans have not received final approval from the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation.

At this point, work is supposed to get started in January and
continue through April 2013.

Johnathan Sitzlar of the GSA's Knoxville office said his agency
expects DOE employees to be able to return to the Federal Building
in May.

Koentop said the DOE has been able to maintain its Oak Ridge
operations during the interim period.  "Our employees have
adjusted well," he said.  "We look forward to the asbestos
abatement project being completed so that we can return to our
familiar work locations, but we're pleased with how our workforce
has reacted to this challenging experience."

The Department of Energy plans to use the money saved during the
outage to reconfigure the interior of the Federal Building to make
operations more efficient when employees return, Koentop said.

Beyond the monthly savings on rent, Koentop said the DOE will
negotiate with the GSA to try to recover the money associated with
relocating work to temporary quarters and moving back into the
Federal Building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prior Case Testimony Ok'd in Georgia Pacific Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article by The Tate Law Group, LLC, available at
JD Supra Law News, Georgia Pacific continues to be the subject of
thousands of lawsuits related to mesothelioma problems arising
from their use of asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s.  In a setback
for the company, the 4th circuit court in Florida recently ruled
that previous testimony could be admitted in a current case.  The
case revolves around Fred and Abbey Rich, who filed suit alleging
that they were exposed to asbestos while doing home improvement
work in Brooklyn, N.Y.  They sought to introduce testimony from a
previous case in which a carpenter had sued Georgia-Pacific over
the same issue.

The company had tried to argue that the testimony needed to be
reintroduced in this case since the lawyers didn't have the chance
to cross examine the carpenter.  However, the court ruled that
since it was the same defendant as in the previous case, the
testimony was admissible.  The reason for this was that the
attorneys on the previous case did in fact have the opportunity to
cross examine the witness.  Since 2005, Georgia-Pacific has been
the subject of as many as 300,000 lawsuits arising out of the use
of asbestos as a joint sealant in their products.

If you or a member of your family has been diagnosed with
mesothelioma, you may also be entitled to sue and recover damages
from the company related to the injury that you received.  It is
however important to retain an attorney familiar with the
situation so as to guarantee that your rights will be protected.
It is also important to gather as much documentation as possible
in order to prove that your sickness was a direct result of
asbestos poisoning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Says Kingston Island Safe for Re-Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Noel Towell of The Canberra Times reports that asbestos
contamination in Kingston Foreshore's man-made island is the
result of the upmarket precinct's industrial past, according to
the ACT government's land sales agency.

Deposits of the potentially deadly substance were found earlier
this month on the artificial island, the site of several luxury
lakeside apartment complexes worth hundreds of millions of
dollars.  It was the latest asbestos find in the Kingston area.

It sparked questions in the industry about how soil contaminated
with asbestos decades ago came to be used in a project that began
only in 2008.

But Land Development Agency chief executive David Dawes says that
the island was built using material that was already in place,
with the remainder consisting of fill brought in from other sites
after being tested by environmental protection authorities and
found safe for "beneficial re-use."

The government insists that there is no risk to workers or
residents from the deposits on the island.  "The harbour civil
works project comprised extensive cut-and-fill earthworks," Mr.
Dawes said.  "Kingston Island, which formed part of this work, is
comprised of both fill material and in-situ material.

"Kingston Foreshore is a former industrial site.  The industrial
nature of the past activities on site contributed to contamination
[there]."

WorkSafe inspectors were called to the island site in mid-November
after workers became concerned about asbestos handling on the
site, but the work safety inspectors found no safety breaches and
allowed work to proceed.

Contaminated land is turning into a crisis in Canberra's urban
expansion.  The nearby mixed-use development at Eastlake now hangs
in the balance as the government contemplates a clean-up bill of
up to AUD100 million for 600,000 cubic meters of contaminated
soil.

The ACT government looks set for a legal showdown with the
Commonwealth over the cost of cleaning up hundreds of other
contaminated sites around the territory, most of them dating back
to the days before self-government.

But Mr. Dawes has told Fairfax Media that his agency followed all
the correct procedures when bringing in fill to construct the
island.

"All material was tested and examined for its suitability for
reuse as fill material by independent environmental consultants.
The results from these tests were then assessed against the
environmental and health criteria specified in the Environment
Protection Authority's endorsed guidelines and the findings
supported by the independent contaminated sites auditor for
Kingston Foreshore prior to the material being used," Mr. Dawes
said.

"Extensive assessment and remediation has been undertaken and is
continuing to be undertaken at Kingston Foreshore."

The LDA chief said the material used to build the island had been
tested and assessed before being put to "sensitive" land use.

"All of the former industrial land at Kingston Foreshore must go
through this rigorous assessment, remediation and audit process
prior to it being used for more sensitive purposes," Mr. Dawes
said.

"All sites at Kingston Foreshore, including the island, are
managed in accordance with strict environmental controls and land
released to date has been assessed by an independent contaminated
sites auditor as 'fit for purpose' and these findings are endorsed
by the EPA."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reported HazMat Dumped in Geelong Still Unsolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Begg of The Geelong Advertiser (AU) reports that more than
seven months after the Geelong Advertiser revealed an illegal
asbestos dump on the Corio Bay foreshore at North Geelong, the
dangerous waste is still there -- uncovered.

An environmental watchdog asked the Environment Protection
Authority to remove the asbestos and investigate who was
responsible for dumping it.

But North Geelong resident Gordon Alderson, who was a member of
Geelong Community for Good Life before it disbanded, said it was
ridiculous that the EPA had not instructed a contractor to fix the
problem and then establish who was responsible for the illegal
dump.

"After all, the EPA's remit is to protect the people of Victoria
from environmental hazards," Mr. Alderson said.

"Removal, to me, is the only option, because, inevitably, if
something has been buried in a cliff face, at some stage or
another it's going to be exposed, and so not removing it is to
just delay the problem."

The City of Greater Geelong has said its preference was to place a
cap over the exposed asbestos.

In the meantime it has fenced off the area.

Mr. Alderson said that while it was good the site had been fenced
off, it was seven months before the EPA even considered
instructing a competent contractor to remove the problem, a
situation he described as "ridiculous."

"They should take action and resolve afterwards who was
responsible for the dumping of the hazardous material in the first
place," he said.

Geelong councillor Kylie Fisher, whose ward is close to the site,
said it was disappointing nothing had been done but the process to
remove the asbestos had to be "absolutely correct" because it
involved a toxic material.

An EPA spokeswoman said the organization had met the council again
last week.

"CoGG has met notice requirements in providing an audit report to
EPA, which has been accepted and will now be reviewed by our audit
team," she said.

"CoGG has moved to voluntarily conduct a further risk assessment,
which we expect to see early in the new year.

"EPA inspected the site in November, confirming it remains
securely fenced, and the public cannot access it."

A spokesman for the council said a meeting was held on Dec. 13
involving representatives of CoGG, the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, and the EPA to review and finalize
a report.

"Council will now write to the EPA outlining the preferred option
for remediation of the site," he said.

                           *********

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  * * *