CAR_Public/130104.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 3

                             Headlines


ADM ALLIANCE: Recalls MoorMan's(R) ShowTec(R) 18 Elite Lamb Feed
CASEY'S GENERAL: Still Awaits Court Nod on "Hot Fuel" Suits Deal
COLUMBIA GAS: Landowners File Class Action Over Property Rights
COMCAST CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Ruling in Philadelphia Cluster Case
COMCAST CORP: Subscribers' Writ of Certiorari Petition Pending

COMCAST CORP: Still Defends Class Suits Over Set-Top Boxes
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Class Suits
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Optionholder Suits Remain Stayed
CONTRA COSTA: Indigent In-Custody Defendants File Class Action
CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Illegal Use of Patient Information

DELIFISH S.A.: Recalls Cold Smoked Salmon Products
DIAGEO PLC: Reaches Deal to Resolve Lowe's Claim in Australia
FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend Employee-Related Class Lawsuits
FOOT LOCKER: "Osberg" Suit Remains Pending in New York
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Mileage Claims

HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Sinacori" Consumer Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Amended "Gammel" Class Complaint Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Suit by C&C Workers in Calif.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Heffelfinger" and "Karlbom" Suits Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend "Skold" Suit in California

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Printer Suit Deal Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Blake" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Autonomy Acquisition
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery in Sinus Buster Suits Has Commenced

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Still Defends Class Suit in New Jersey
ISIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Kynamro
JAMES DYER: N.Y. Judge Gives Green Light to New Class Action
KIA MOTORS: Sued Over Misleading Marketing Campaigns for Vehicles
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Being Sold to GETCO for Too Little, Suit Claims

LG CHEM: Faces Another Antitrust Class Action Suit in California
LITHIA MOTORS: "McClintic" Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
LITHIA MOTORS: Discovery in "Neese" Opt-Out Members' Suit Ongoing
LKQ CORP: Class Suit vs. Two Product Suppliers Remain Pending
MANTRIA CORP: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action

MERCEDES-BENZ: Class Action Over Air-Intake Systems Can Proceed
MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Suit
MOBILE COUNTY: Suit Over Long-Term Suspensions to Press Ahead
NEW JERSEY: Pohatcong Supports Red-Light Camera Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit Over Red Light Camera Program

OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Directors Subject to More Class Suits
ROSS STORES: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
SILVERCORP METALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SOTTILE SECURITY: Sued For Not Paying Overtime Premium Pay
STANDARD & POOR'S: Issued False & Misleading Ratings, Suit Says

STARLINE TOURS: Employees File Suit Over Labor Law Violations
TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suit
TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Fatal Crash Suit to Proceed Despite Settlement
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal in Stockholder Suit in Israel Pending
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Approved
WHIRLPOOL: Continues to Defend Washing Machine Class Action
WHITEHAVEN INCOME: Faces Suit Over Illegal Interest Rates

* Accounting Firms Avoided Shareholder Class Action in 2012
* Class Action Measures Big Boost for Small Investors in India

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Has 2 Pending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Still Defending PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Still Defends 1,113 Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCOM Group Unit Still Defends Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends "Edwards" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ecology and Environment Unit Faces Consent Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covidien Unit Had 12,200 Cases at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Still No Developments in "Scott" Suit vs. Chase

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in "Jansen" Suit vs. Chase
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v St. Croix Renaissance Returns to State Ct.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Crane Co.'s Summary Judgment Motion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro-AFMI Insurance Exclusion Ruling Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Decision Favoring Abex Corp., et al.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tokyo Court Excluded 150 Plaintiffs From Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poindexter Village Abatement Project Stopped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Rideau Hall Attic Begins January
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Favors Illinois Central's Forum Motion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Case Due to Plaintiff's Lies


                          *********


ADM ALLIANCE: Recalls MoorMan's(R) ShowTec(R) 18 Elite Lamb Feed
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADM Alliance Nutrition, Inc. ("Alliance Nutrition") is recalling
50-pound bags of MoorMan's(R) ShowTec(R) 18 Elite Lamb DC, product
number 80939MPS, because the product has high levels of copper.
There are three lot numbers involved in this recall: BF23512,
BF27812, and BF29312.  These were distributed between August 24,
2012, and November 21, 2012.  The product could have been
purchased directly from Alliance Nutrition or through
distributors.

Copper toxicity in sheep may lead to lethargy, anemia, constant
teeth grinding, extreme thirst, jaundice, dark brown or red urine,
diarrhea, difficulty breathing, weakness, recumbency and/or death.

The recalled sheep feed was shipped to distributors and customers
in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The high copper levels were discovered as a result of an
investigation stemming from a report of two sheep deaths.  The lot
number, BF23512, BF27812, or BF29312, can be found at the bottom
of the label.  Customers who have purchased the recalled feed may
return it to their distributor or directly to Alliance Nutrition
for a full refund.  Please direct any customer inquiries to 260-
824-0079 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00. p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday.  Pictures of the recalled products'
labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm333677.htm


CASEY'S GENERAL: Still Awaits Court Nod on "Hot Fuel" Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. continues to await court approval of
its settlement of class action lawsuits filed by gasoline
consumers in Kansas and Missouri, according to the Company's
September 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

The Company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers.  The complaints generally
allege that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has
misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing
to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at
temperatures above 60 degrees F. Fuel is measured at 60 degrees F
in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel
taxes in Kansas and Missouri.  The complaints all seek
certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers
within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks
certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all
states.  The actions generally seek recovery for alleged
violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising
practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.  The amounts sought are not quantified.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of
defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline
products in the United States.  On June 18, 2007, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
pending hot fuel cases (officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class
certification. Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially
completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant.
The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims. However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a
class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the
Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and
several other Defendants. With respect to claims for unjust
enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and
entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that,
at any time between January 1, 2001 and the present, purchased
motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60 degrees F,
in the state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or
controlled by one or more of the Defendants.  As to claims for
violation of the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all
individuals, sole proprietors and family partnerships (excluding
employees or affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.
The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes. The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.

On April 6, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for the
Company informed the Court that they reached an enforceable
settlement agreement which, if approved by the Court, will result
in the settlement and dismissal of all claims against Casey's in
the multidistrict litigation, including the Kansas cases.  Based
on this representation, the Court severed plaintiffs' claims
against the Company from the claims against the remaining
defendants.  The settlement amount for the Company was determined
not to be material.  The court has not yet acted upon the proposed
settlement of the plaintiffs' claims against the Company.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries
operate convenience stores under the name "Casey's General Store"
and "Just Diesel" in eleven Midwestern states, primarily Iowa,
Missouri and Illinois.  On July 31, 2012, there were a total of
1,698 Casey's Stores in operation.  All stores offer gasoline for
sale on a self-serve basis and carry a broad selection of food
(including freshly prepared foods such as pizza, donuts and
sandwiches), beverages, tobacco products, health and beauty aids,
automotive products and other non-food items.  The Company derives
its revenue primarily from the retail sale of gasoline and the
products offered in its stores.


COLUMBIA GAS: Landowners File Class Action Over Property Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Foster Seachrist, writing for Farm and Dairy, reports that
a class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District,
by three sets of landowners and a business on behalf of all
landowners in Ohio who are in a similar position.

Paul Gary Wilson and his wife, Judy Wilson, who own 151 acres;
Charles D. Wilson and Carleen Wilson, 70 acres; Shawn P. Wilson
and Katherine Wilson, 13.9 acres; and Geopetro LLC., 2,600 acres;
filed the lawsuit Dec. 21.

The landowners in this lawsuit do not have a lease signed with
Columbia Gas.  However, the landowners' properties are being used
by Columbia Gas Transmission as part of an underground storage
facility.

John Keller, attorney for the plaintiffs said the case is not
about challenging the need for underground storage facilities.
The lawsuit is just asking for fair compensation for the
landowners.  He added that this is a case about property rights
and has nothing to do with shale development.

The lawsuit claims the landowners are not being compensated for
the use of the storage space under their property, and that the
land is being used without their permission.

The lawsuit also claims that by Columbia Gas Transmission storing
gas under their properties, they are violating the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, the "takings clause," by not
compensating the landowners for the use of the land.

According to the lawsuit, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution provides in part, ". . . nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation."

The landowners also claim that they have the lost the right to
develop and produce the gas and minerals that exist under the
property.

Another issue raised in the lawsuit is the secrecy regarding the
exact boundaries of the storage field that encompasses the
landowners' property.

The landowners claim there is no documentation available to them
as to where the boundaries are and whether or not their property
is being used as part of the underground storage.  However, they
have been told by Columbia Gas Transmission that they are part of
the underground storage field.

The landowners are seeking compensation or the completion of
eminent domain proceedings by Columbia Gas Transmission.  They are
also seeking the right to use their properties, including their
mineral rights free of Columbia's interference and intrusion.

The lawsuit is also seeking a permanent injunction to prevent
Columbia Gas from using the landowners' property for storing
natural gas or from taking native natural gas unless Columbia
enters into an agreement.  In addition, the landowners are seeking
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Attempts were made by Farm and Dairy to obtain comment from
Columbia Gas Transmission and its law firm, Vorys, Sater, Seymore
and Pease LLP in Columbus, as well as its parent company, NiSource
Gas Transmission and Storage, headquartered in Houston.


COMCAST CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Ruling in Philadelphia Cluster Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation is awaiting a Supreme Court decision on its
appeal from a class certification in an antitrust class action
lawsuit filed by the Company's customer base in the Philadelphia
Cluster area, according to the Company's October 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the Company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
the Company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints.  In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were
certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively.  The
Company appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia
Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the class certification in August 2011 and denied the Company's
petition for a rehearing en banc in September 2011.  In March
2010, the Company moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the
plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster.  In April 2012,
the District Court issued a decision dismissing some of the
plaintiffs' claims, but allowing two claims to proceed to trial.
The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are
stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.
In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, and
has scheduled oral argument for November 2012.  In September 2012,
the trial court stayed all trial and pretrial proceedings pending
resolution of the Supreme Court appeal.


COMCAST CORP: Subscribers' Writ of Certiorari Petition Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for writ of certiorari in connection with the
affirmation of an order dismissing a subscriber class action
lawsuit is pending before the Supreme Court, according to Comcast
Corporation's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

The Company is among the defendants in a purported class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California in September 2007.  The potential class is comprised
of all persons residing in the United States who have subscribed
to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the
defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce
video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants
who distribute video programming via cable and satellite
(including the Company), which preclude the distributor defendants
from reselling channels to customers on an "unbundled" basis in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  The plaintiffs seek treble
damages and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant
to resell certain channels to its customers on an "unbundled"
basis.  In October 2009, the Central District of California issued
an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.  In
March 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's order.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for a rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied in May
2012.  In August 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and in October 2012, the
Company filed a brief in opposition to the petition.


COMCAST CORP: Still Defends Class Suits Over Set-Top Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend antitrust class action
lawsuits related to set-top boxes, according to the Company's
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the country.  All of these
actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.
In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that the Company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.  The plaintiffs also allege a claim for
unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class
of the Company's premium cable customers and on behalf of
subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California,
Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington.  In January 2010,
the Company moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims
for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade
practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.  In September 2010, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of
additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade
practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West
Virginia.  In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their
unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on
behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses.  In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging
only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts in California and Washington.  The plaintiffs seek relief on
behalf of a nationwide class of the Company's premium cable
customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable
customers from California and Washington.  In July 2011, the
Company moved to compel arbitration of certain claims and to stay
the remaining claims pending arbitration.

The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the Company
improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust
Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.  The
Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment/restitution.  The Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the
multidistrict litigation.  In March 2010, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Attorney General's motion to remand the
case back to West Virginia state court.  In June 2010, the
Attorney General moved to sever and remand the portion of the
claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief back to West
Virginia state court.  The Company filed a brief in opposition to
the motion in July 2010.

The Company believes the claims in each of the pending actions in
this item are without merit and intends to defend the actions
vigorously.  The Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the
actions, including a range of possible loss, or how the final
resolution of any such actions would impact the Company's results
of operations or cash flows for any one period or the Company's
consolidated financial position.  In addition, as any action nears
a trial, there is an increased possibility that the action may be
settled by the parties.  Nevertheless, the final disposition of
any of the actions is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, but could
possibly be material to its consolidated results of operations or
cash flows for any one period.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Barge Line Company is awaiting final dismissal of class
action lawsuits arising from a collision incident in Mississippi
River involving its subsidiary, according to the Company's August
29, 2012, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

American Commercial Lines Inc. ("ACL"), the parent of Commercial
Barge Line Company ("CBL"), and American Commercial Lines LLC
("ACL LLC"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ACL, have been
named as defendants in the following putative class action
lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (collectively the "Class Action
Lawsuits"): Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin
Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012, filed on July 24, 2008;
Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
(America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-
Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed
on July 24, 2008; and Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC; American
Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
Pilots Association, Case No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24,
2009.  The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been
dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the
deadline set by the Court.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on
July 23, 2008, involving one of ACL LLC's tank barges that was
being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C. ("DRD"), an independent
towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a collision
with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at
Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.
The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil,
of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank barge
was damaged in the collision and partially sunk. There was no
damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor damage.  The
Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability
related to the incident.  All claims in the class actions have
been settled with payment to be made from funds on deposit with
the court in the IINA and IINA and Houston Casualty Company
interpleader.  IINA is DRD's primary insurer and IINA and Houston
Casualty Company are DRD's excess insurers.  The settlement has
final approval from the court.  Settlement funds were provided to
claimants' counsel and the Company expects final dismissal of all
lawsuits against all parties will be entered, including the
Company, with prejudice once all the releases are signed.  Claims
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA 90") were dismissed
without prejudice.  There is a separate administrative process for
making a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to
litigation.  The Company is processing OPA 90 claims properly
presented, documented and recoverable.  The Company has also
received numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and
various economic damages loss related to the oil spill, including
notification by the National Pollution Funds Center of claims it
has received.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and claims
submitted, however OPA 90 has a three year prescriptive period and
any new claim filed after three years would be subject to
dismissal.

The Company is in early discussions with the Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Group, consisting of various State and Federal
agencies, regarding the scope of environmental damage that may
have been caused by the incident.  Recently Buras Marina filed
lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana in Case No. 09-4464
against the Company seeking payment for "rental cost" of its
marina for cleanup operations.  ACL and ACL LLC have also been
named as defendants in the following interpleader action brought
by DRD's primary insurer IINA seeking court approval as to the
disbursement of the funds: Indemnity Insurance Company of North
America v. DRD Towing Company, LLC; DRD Towing Group, LLC;
American Commercial Lines, LLC; American Commercial Lines, Inc.;
Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC, Daigle, Fisse & Kessenich; Stephen
Marshall Gabarick; Bernard Attridge; Austin Sicard; Lamont L.
Murphy, individually and on behalf of Murphy Dredging; Deep Delta
Distributors, Inc.; David Cvitanovich; Kelly Clark; Timothy Clark,
individually and on behalf of Taylor Clark, Bradley Barrosse;
Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M. Alfonso, Sr.; George C. McGee; Sherral
Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and Acy J. Cooper, Jr., United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action 08-
4156, Section "I-5," filed on August 11, 2008.  DRD's excess
insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty Company intervened into this
action and deposited $9,000 into the Court's registry. ACL LLC has
filed two actions in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from or
limitation of liability relating to the foregoing incident as
provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C. Sections 30501,
30505 and 30511.  Tintomara interests and DRD also filed
limitation actions.  ACL made a claim for its damages against
Tintomara interests and DRD in their respective limitation
actions.  The Company has also filed a declaratory judgment action
against DRD seeking to have the contracts between them declared
"void ab initio."  This action has been consolidated with the
limitation actions and stayed pending the outcome of the
limitation actions.  A trial on the ACL, Tintomara interests and
DRD limitation actions has been concluded and the Company is
awaiting the judge's decision on liability of the parties and
apportionment of ACL and Tintomara's damages.

On August 22, 2011, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana captioned United States of
America v. American Commercial Lines LLC and D.R.D. Towing, LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-2076.  The action seeks damages of
approximately $25 million, including certain repayment to the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund for sums it paid related to the cleanup
of the oil spill and to certain claimants for damages cognizable
under OPA 90, a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act in an
amount to be determined at trial as well as a claim for natural
resources damages.  On July 25, 2011, an action was filed in the
25th Judicial District for the Parish of Plaquemines State of
Louisiana captioned Chuc Nguyen, et al. v. American Commercial
Lines, Inc. and its Insurers, ABC Insurance Company and Indemnity
Insurance Company of North America, No. 58936.  The action filed
by numerous commercial fishermen seeks damages for real or
personal property, loss of subsistence use of natural resources
associated with loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity.
The Company participated in the U.S. Coast Guard investigation of
the matter and participated in the hearings which have concluded.
A finding has not yet been announced.  Although the Company has
made demand on DRD (including its insurers) and Tintomara
interests for reimbursement of cleanup costs, indemnification and
other damages sustained by the Company, there is no assurance that
any other party that may be found responsible for the accident
will have the insurance or financial resources available to
provide such defense and indemnification.  The Company has various
insurance policies covering pollution, property, marine and
general liability.  While the cost of cleanup operations and other
potential liabilities are significant, the Company believes it has
satisfactory insurance coverage and other legal remedies to cover
substantially all of the cost.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Optionholder Suits Remain Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits commenced in Israel remain stayed until
actions pending in the United States of America regarding stock
option accounting are resolved, according to Comverse Technology,
Inc.'s December 20, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  To date, the stay has not yet been lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  The Katriel case has been consolidated with the
Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1334/09) and is subject to the stay.  At the preliminary hearing
in the Tel Aviv District Court in October 2011, the Deutsch case
was also made subject to the stay.  The Company did not accrue for
these matters as the potential loss is currently not probable or
reasonably estimable.

Comverse Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: CMVT), originally founded in
Israel, is a technology company located in Woodbury, New York, in
the United States, that develops and markets telecommunications
software.  The Company focuses on providing value-added services
to telecommunication service providers, in particular to mobile
network operators.  Comverse Technology has several wholly or
partly owned subsidiaries.


CONTRA COSTA: Indigent In-Custody Defendants File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Contra Costa
County illegally throws indigent defendants in jail until a public
defender "deigns to come to court," two men claim in a federal
class action.

John Farrow and Jerome Wade sued Contra Costa County Public
Defender Robin Lipetzky.

Contra Costa County, a wealthy county north and east of Berkeley,
includes Mount Diablo and the cities of Richmond, San Pablo,
Orinda and Walnut Creek.

Mr. Farrow claims Mr. Lipetzky followed the county's "policies,
practices and customs" of withholding counsel "as a matter of
written policy," and they "languished" in jail as a result.

"Indigent, in-custody defendants in Contra Costa County are
customarily left in jail without counsel, after their first court
appearance, for 5 to 13 days," the men say in the complaint.

"Although the first court appearance is dubbed 'arraignment,' no
plea is taken, bail is not examined and counsel is not appointed,
as required by California law.

"The Public Defender withholds counsel to detainees as a matter of
written policy.

"Pursuant to this written policy, an in-custody, indigent criminal
defendant's request for court-appointed counsel triggers a
'referral to the Public Defender' and an automatic continuance for
'further arraignment.'

"The automatic continuance is imposed regardless of whether a
juvenile is charged as an adult, whether it is a misdemeanor or
felony complaint, whether the defendant suffers from a
developmental disability or other infirmity, whether evidence of
misidentification requires immediate investigation, or other
exigent circumstances."

Messrs. Farrow and Wade separately told courts they could not
afford counsel in September and November 2012 respectively, they
say.

Mr. Farrow says he waited 13 days for counsel to show up.

Mr. Wade, 17, who was arrested at high school, says he waited for
7 days.

"Although the automatic continuance is customarily between 5 and
13 days, depending upon where the case was filed within the
county, defendants are never informed of their statutory speedy
trial rights prior to the imposition of this automatic
continuance," the complaint states.

"California's statutory speedy trial scheme adamantly states that
both the criminal defendant and the People are entitled to
preliminary hearing and trial at the earliest possible time.
California's statutory speedy trial time limits, however, are only
engaged once a defendant has entered his plea.  Therefore, given
that the court does not ask for a plea until counsel arrives,
plaintiffs' statutory speedy trial rights are suspended till the
Public Defender deigns to come to court.

"Under California law there is no remedy, in the criminal context,
for flouting California's statutory speedy trial scheme in this
manner.  California Civil Code section 52.1, however, provides
plaintiffs with a remedy for the Public Defender's forcible
interference with their statutory rights.

"The Public Defender's policy also denies indigent defendants
their federal and state rights to the assistance of counsel at the
first appearance in court, or a reasonable time thereafter.

"This policy further effectively denies these defendants their
right to apply for bail in the 5 to 13 day period of the Public
Defender's absence.

"Additionally, this policy forces in-custody, misdemeanor
defendants to give up their statutory right to an immediate
probable cause hearing.

"Plaintiffs in this action are all clients of the Contra Costa
County Public Defender, the Contra Costa County Alternative Public
Defender's Office, and private conflicts-counsel, who are, have,
or will languish in jail due to the Public Defender's policy of
deliberate indifference."

Messrs. Farrow and Wade estimate that the class has more than
1,000 members.

They seek injunctive relief requiring Mr. Lipetzky to appear "at
the first appearance" of all indigent, in-custody criminal
defendants; class certification; and nominal, statutory and
punitive damages for violation of the Sixth and 14th Amendments
and the California Civil Code.

They are represented by Christopher Martin, of Point Richmond, and
Michael Dietrick of Petaluma.


CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Illegal Use of Patient Information
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark illegally swipes
patient information from competing pharmacies and uses it to try
to steal their customers, a class action claims in San Francisco
Federal Court.


DELIFISH S.A.: Recalls Cold Smoked Salmon Products
--------------------------------------------------
Potential Listeria-positive products have been identified and the
Company says it can confirm that Delifish S.A. has issued a
voluntary recall of cold smoked salmon products potentially
containing Listeria monocytogenes placed on the market in the USA
produced from lots 249 through 291, manufactured between September
5 2012 and October 17, 2012.  There have been no complaints or
illnesses reported.  Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Product was possibly distributed in the CA, VA, OH, IL, FL, GA,
TX, DE, NJ, NY, PA, and Puerto Rico and reached consumers through
retail stores.  Under the following brand names Black Bear of the
Black Forest Smoked Salmon ( 1 lb., UPC # 810230000493,Lots = 249
thru 291), Food Service Cold Smoked Salmon Trim 1 lb. Lot #'s =
249 thru 291, Einstein Darn Good 4 oz Retail package UPC #
099892315200, Lot #'s = 249 thru 291, Food Service Whole Smoked
Side 3-5 lb. pack food service Lot# 's 249 thru 291, Silver Source
Smoked Salmon Foodservice 2-3 lb. smoked fillet Lot# 's = 249 thru
291, Royal Fjord Smoked Toppers 6oz, UPC = 810230000561, Lot #'s =
249 thru 291, and Royal Fjord Sliced Smoked Salmon Loin, 12-14 oz.
Item # 42925 Lot #'s= 249 thru 291 and HEB 4 oz. smoked salmon
Package UPC 041220630417 Lot #'s= 249 thru 291

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm333682.htm

The voluntary recall is carried out as a precautionary measure in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is
based on Listeria detection in a few of the recalled batches.  No
other products supplied by Delifish or Marine Harvest USA are
involved in this case.

The US FDA has a zero tolerance for Listeria in products intended
to be eaten without prior heat treatment.  In EU the tolerance
limit for such products is maximum 100 bacteria/gram.

Listeria control thus has a very high attention in the Company
with strict internal standards and routines.  The Company,
therefore, takes this issue seriously and is taking these measures
to assure that products supplied by Delifish are healthy and safe
for its customers and consumers.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-877-479-8085
for more information including how to return the product for a
full refund.


DIAGEO PLC: Reaches Deal to Resolve Lowe's Claim in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diageo plc negotiated a deal to resolve the claim of Lynette Lowe
in a thalidomide-related lawsuit in Australia, according to the
Company's September 5, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2012.

In Australia, a class action claim alleging product liability and
negligence for injuries arising from the consumption of the drug
thalidomide has been filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria
against Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Limited, its parent
Diageo Scotland Limited (formerly Distillers Company Limited), as
well as against Grunenthal GmbH, the developer of the drug.  The
size of the class is not yet known.  On July 18, 2012, Diageo
settled the claim of the lead claimant Lynette Rowe and agreed to
a process to consider the remaining claimants in the class.  To
enable this process to occur, Lynette Rowe and her legal
representatives have agreed not to take any step towards a trial
of any issue in the litigation before August 31, 2013.  In the
United Kingdom, proceedings have twice been commenced but lapsed
for lack of service.  Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Limited
distributed the drug in Australia and the United Kingdom for a
period in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  Diageo is unable to
quantify meaningfully the possible loss or range of loss to which
these lawsuits may give rise.  The company has worked voluntarily
for many years with various thalidomide organisations and has
provided significant financial support.

Diageo plc is a leading premium drinks business. The business has
a strong presence in United States; an integrated presence in
Western European; and an increasing presence in the faster growing
markets of Asia, Africa, Latin America, Russia and Eastern Europe.
The Company is incorporated as a public limited company in England
and Wales.  It was incorporated as Arthur Guinness Son & Company
Limited on October 21, 1886.  The group was formed by the merger
of Grand Metropolitan Public Limited Company (GrandMet) and
Guinness PLC (the Guinness Group) in December 1997.  Diageo plc's
principal executive office is located at Lakeside Drive, Park
Royal, London NW10 7HQ and its telephone number is +44 (0) 20 8978
6000.


FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend Employee-Related Class Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to defend various
employee-related class action complaints, according to the
Company's December 5, 2012's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
27, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007.  In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In 2009, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide collective action. During the
course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888 current
and former employees of the Company offering them the opportunity
to participate in the class action, and approximately 5,027 have
opted in.

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies.  With the exception of Hill v.
Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, and Cortes v. Foot
Locker filed in federal court of New York, all of these actions
were consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira.  The consolidated cases are
in the discovery stages of proceedings.  In Hill v. Foot Locker,
in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinois
employees only.  The Company's motion for leave to appeal was
denied.  The Company is currently engaged in mediation with
plaintiff's counsel in Pereira in an attempt to determine whether
it will be possible to resolve the consolidated cases and Hill.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing.

Meanwhile, the Company is vigorously defending these class
actions. Due to the inherent uncertainties of such matters, and
because fact and expert discovery have not been completed, the
Company is currently unable to make an estimate of the range of
loss.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including the Pereira consolidated cases, and Hill
would have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as
a whole.


FOOT LOCKER: "Osberg" Suit Remains Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Osberg v. Foot Locker alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 remains
pending, according to Foot Locker, Inc.'s December 5, 2012's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 27, 2012.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a purported class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion.  Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description.  Claims for alleged
violations of the notice provision of Section 204(h) of ERISA and
ERISA's age discrimination provisions were dismissed by the court.
Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters, because
plaintiff is attempting to extend discovery on certain issues, and
because certain motions relating to key portions of the case are
currently pending with the court, the Company is currently unable
to make an estimate of loss or range of loss for this case.

Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters, because
plaintiff is attempting to extend discovery on certain issues, and
because certain motions relating to key portions of the case are
currently pending with the court, the Company is currently unable
to make an estimate of loss or range of loss for this case.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including the Osberg case would have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Mileage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford overstated by 10 mpg the
mileage its 2013 Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrids get, a class
action claims in Westchester County Court.

A similar class action was filed in Santa Ana, Calif. Federal
Court.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Sinacori" Consumer Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Sinacori v. HP was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff in July, according to Hewlett-Packard Company's
September 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

The case Sinacori v. HP is a consumer class action originally
filed against HP on December 1, 2011 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that HP
printers have a design defect in the software installed on the
printers which could allow hackers and unauthorized users to gain
access to the printers, steal personal and confidential
information from consumers and otherwise control and cause
physical damage to the printers.  The original complaint also
alleged that HP was aware of this security vulnerability and
failed to disclose it to consumers.  The original complaint sought
certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP
printers and unspecified damages, restitution, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 3,
2012, an amended complaint was filed substituting a new plaintiff
from the state of New York in place of the original plaintiff.
The amended complaint asserts only a single claim under the New
York consumer protection statute, and the amended complaint now
seeks to certify a class of consumers in the state of New York who
purchased an HP printer that lacks a "digital signature" or "code
signing" security feature.  Like the original complaint, the
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  HP has
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a hearing on
HP's motion was scheduled to be held on September 6, 2012.  Prior
to the hearing on HP's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed his complaint against HP. The dismissal was
entered by the court on July 12, 2012.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Amended "Gammel" Class Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned Richard
Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is pending, according to
the Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,
2012.

The lawsuit is a putative securities class action filed on
September 13, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging, among other things, that
from November 22, 2010, to August 18, 2011, the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
concealing material information and making false statements about
HP's business model, the future of the webOS operating system, and
HP's commitment to developing and integrating webOS products,
including the TouchPad tablet PC.  On April 11, 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.
On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
asserts the same causes of action but drops one of the defendants
and shortens the period that the alleged violations of the
Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011, to August 18, 2011.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Suit by C&C Workers in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company was sued by the Cement & Concrete Workers
District Council Pension Fund in August over securities law
violations, according to the Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended October 31, 2012.

The case captioned Cement & Concrete Workers District Council
Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative
securities class action filed on August 3, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to
August 6, 2010, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards
of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because
Mark Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and
concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his
continued employment with HP.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Heffelfinger" and "Karlbom" Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company's subsidiary continues to face class
action lawsuits commenced by Heffelfinger, et al., and Karlbom, et
al., according to the Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended October 31, 2012.

HP acquired Electronic Data Systems Corporation on August 26,
2008.

Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
class action filed in November 2006 in California Superior Court
claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in
California were misclassified as exempt employees.  The case was
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in California.
On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
June 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for
two of the named plaintiffs, but reversed summary judgment on the
third named plaintiff, remanding the case back to the trial court
and inviting the trial court to revisit its prior certification
order.

The defendant has moved to decertify the class, and, in November
2012, the trial court issued a tentative order granting the
defendant's motion.  Another purported class action originally
filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic
Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009,
alleges similar facts and is pending in San Diego County Superior
Court.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend "Skold" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit initiated by Skold, et al., according to the
Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,
2012.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit filed against HP on June 14, 2004, that is pending in
state court in Santa Clara County, California.  The lawsuit
alleges that Intel Corporation ("Intel") concealed performance
problems related to the Intel Pentium 4 processor by, among others
things, the manipulation of performance benchmarks.  The lawsuit
alleges that HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly unlawful
conduct.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed
a motion seeking to certify a nationwide class asserting claims
under the California Unfair Competition Law.  On April 19, 2012,
the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
plaintiffs' motion.  As to Intel, the court certified a nationwide
class excluding residents of Illinois.  As to HP, the court
certified a class limited to California residents who purchased
their computers "from HP" for "personal, family or household use."
As required by the same order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that limits their claims against HP to a California
class while reserving the right to seek additional state-specific
subclasses as to HP.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Printer Suit Deal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Hewlett-Packard Company's
settlement of the Inkjet Printer Litigation remains pending,
according to the Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2012.

HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and
unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among
other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet
printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely
and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its
full capacity or to choose competitive products.

   * A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
     Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for
     the Northern District of California seeking class
     certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced
     damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys'
     fees.

   * A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
     2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California seeking class certification,
     restitution, damages (including enhanced damages),
     injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

   * A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
     May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
     Northern District of California alleging that HP designed
     its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in
     addition to black ink when printing black and white images
     and text and seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive
     class and a California-only damages class.

   * Two class actions against HP and its subsidiary,
     Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one
     commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and one
     commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are
     seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory
     relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
     compensatory and punitive damages.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes. Under the terms of the settlement, the lawsuits were
consolidated, and eligible class members each have the right to
obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use
in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's Web site.
As part of the settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members
with additional information regarding HP inkjet printer
functionality and to change the content of certain software and
user guide messaging provided to users regarding the life of
inkjet printer cartridges.  In addition, the settlement provides
for class counsel and the class representatives to be paid
attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends.  On March 29, 2011, the
court granted final approval of the settlement.  On April 27,
2011, certain class members who objected to the settlement filed
an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit of the court's order granting final approval of the
settlement.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company's subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York, according
to the Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,
2012.

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10,
2006, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York claiming that current and former EDS
employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining
computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt
employees.  Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al.
v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October
23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
facts.  The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial
purposes with the Cunningham case.  On December 14, 2010, the
court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of
employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated
Cunningham and Steavens matter.  Approximately 2,600 current and
former EDS employees have filed consents to opt-in to the
litigation.  Plaintiffs had alleged separate "opt out" classes
based on the overtime laws of the states of California,
Washington, Massachusetts and New York, but plaintiffs have
dismissed those claims.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Blake" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in a collective action
pending in Texas, according to the Company's December 27, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended October 31, 2012.

Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported nationwide
collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming that a
class of information technology support personnel was
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
that the court conditionally certify the case as a collective
action.  HP has opposed plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, and the court has taken the motion under
advisement.  Only one opt-in plaintiff had joined the named
plaintiff in the lawsuit at the time that the motion was filed.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Autonomy Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is facing numerous lawsuits in California
related to its acquisition of Autonomy Corporation plc, according
to the Company's December 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,
2012.

HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to,
among other things, its November 20, 2012 announcement that it
recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and
intangible assets within its Software segment of approximately
$8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and
HP's statements that, based on HP's findings from an ongoing
investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to
accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and
disclosure failures at Autonomy Corporation plc that occurred
prior to and in connection with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and
the impact of those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations
on the expected future financial performance of the Autonomy
business over the long term.  This stockholder litigation was
commenced against, among others, certain current and former HP
executive officers, certain current and former members of the HP
Board of Directors, and certain advisors to HP.  The plaintiffs in
these litigation matters are seeking to recover certain
compensation paid by HP to the defendants and/or other damages.
These matters include:

   * Allan J. Nicolow v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a
     putative securities class action filed on November 26, 2012,
     in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California alleging, among other things, that
     from August 19, 2011, to November 20, 2012, the defendants
     violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
     concealing material information and making false statements
     related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial
     performance of HP's enterprise services business.

   * Philip Ricciardi v. Michael R. Lynch, et al. is a lawsuit
     filed on November 26, 2012, in the United States District
     Court for the Northern District of California alleging,
     among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
     10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material
     information and making false statements related to HP's
     acquisition of Autonomy.  The lawsuit also alleges that the
     defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate
     assets and were unjustly enriched in connection with HP's
     acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to repurchase its
     own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011
     and October 2012.

   * Ernesto Espinoza v. Michael R. Lynch, et al. is a lawsuit
     filed on November 27, 2012, in the United States District
     Court for the Northern District of California alleging,
     among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
     10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material
     information and making false statements related to HP's
     acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of
     HP's enterprise services business.  The lawsuit also alleges
     that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted
     corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in connection
     with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to
     repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices
     between August 2011 and October 2012.

   * Andrea Bascheri, et al. v. Leo Apotheker, et al. is a
     lawsuit filed on November 30, 2012, in the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of California
     alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated
     Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing
     material information and making false statements related to
     HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance
     of HP's enterprise services business.  The lawsuit also
     alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
     wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by
     causing HP to misrepresent its business and financial
     prospects and by causing HP to repurchase its own stock at
     allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October
     2012.  The lawsuit further alleges that certain individual
     defendants engaged in or assisted insider trading and
     thereby breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly
     enriched and violated Sections 25402 and 25403 of the
     California Corporations Code.

   * Davin Pokoik v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a
     putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2012,
     in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California alleging, among other things, that
     from August 19, 2011, to November 19, 2012, the defendants
     violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
     concealing material information and making false statements
     related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial
     performance of HP's enterprise services business.

   * Martin Bertisch v. Leo Apotheker, et al. is a lawsuit filed
     on December 3, 2012, in the United States District Court for
     the Northern District of California alleging, among other
     things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
     20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information
     and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of
     Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's enterprise
     services business.  The lawsuit also alleges that the
     defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate
     assets and were unjustly enriched in connection with HP's
     hiring of Leo Apotheker as Chief Executive Officer and HP's
     acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to repurchase its
     own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011
     and October 2012.

   * Mike Laffen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. is a putative
     class action filed on December 6, 2012, in the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of California
     alleging, among other things, that, from December 12, 2011,
     to November 22, 2012, HP's 401(k) Plan Committee and HP's
     Investment Review Committee breached their fiduciary
     obligations to HP's 401(k) plan and its participants and
     thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
     ("ERISA").

   * Miriam Birinkrant v. Michael R. Lynch, et al. is a lawsuit
     filed on December 14, 2012, in California Superior Court
     alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached
     their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were
     unjustly enriched in connection with HP's acquisition of
     Autonomy and by causing HP to repurchase its own stock at
     allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October
     2012.

   * City of Birmingham Retirement & Relief System v. Leo
     Apotheker, et al. is a lawsuit filed on December 18, 2012,
     in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California alleging, among other things, that
     the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
     Exchange Act by concealing material information and making
     false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and
     the financial performance of HP's enterprise services
     business.  The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants
     breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and
     were unjustly enriched in connection with HP's acquisition
     of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's enterprise
     services business.

   * Karyn Lustig v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. is a putative
     class action filed on December 18, 2012, in the United
     States District Court for the Northern District of
     California alleging, among other things, that from
     August 19, 2011, to November 20, 2012, the defendants
     breached their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k) plan and
     its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and
     405(a) of ERISA by concealing negative information regarding
     the financial performance of Autonomy and HP's enterprise
     services business and failing to restrict participants from
     investing in HP stock.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The Company has seven business segments for
financial reporting purposes: the Personal Systems Group ("PSG"),
Services, the Imaging and Printing Group ("IPG"), Enterprise
Servers, Storage and Networking ("ESSN"), Software, HP Financial
Services ("HPFS") and Corporate Investments.  The core of its
business is its hardware products, which include its PC, server,
storage, networking, and imaging and printing products.  The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery in Sinus Buster Suits Has Commenced
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action lawsuits related to
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.'s Sinus Buster(R) products, according
to the Company's December 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2012.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit,
Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and the
Company ("Harrison case").  On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David
Delre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brought a class action lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against
Wayne Perry, Dynova Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and
the Company.  Each complaint alleges, among other things, that
their Sinus Buster(R) products are improperly marketed, labeled
and sold as homeopathic products, and that these allegations
support claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express and
implied warranties and alleged violations of various state and
federal statutes.  The Company answered the complaints on July 17,
2012, and June 26, 2012, respectively, and asserted cross-claims
against the other defendants, except Walgreens which was dismissed
from the Harrison case.  Discovery has commenced in both cases.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaints.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions.

Amityville, New York-based Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., a Delaware
corporation incorporated in April 1982, is a specialty
pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and marketing
generic and branded prescription and OTC products.  The Company
specializes in the manufacture of liquid and semi-solid dosage
forms and produces a range of sterile ophthalmic, otic and
inhalation products.  The Company's Health Care Products division
is a developer and marketer of branded prescription and OTC
products for the diabetes marketplace.  Hi-Tech's ECR
Pharmaceuticals subsidiary markets branded prescription products.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Still Defends Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit.  The
action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Gloucester County.  The action was initially filed
on May 8, 2006, alleging that the HVAC systems installed in
certain of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New
Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue.  On
December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification;
the potential class is 1,065 homes.  The Company filed a request
to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification
decision.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and the
Company filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey
Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate
Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages
pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act.  The Company believes there
is insurance coverage available to it for this action.  While the
Company has determined that a loss related to this case is not
probable, it is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss
related to this matter at this time given the class certification
is still in review by the Appellate Division.

On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries of the Company filed a
separate action seeking indemnification against the various
manufactures and subcontractors implicated by the class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 20,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended October 31, 2012.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: HOV) is a United States real
estate company involved in every aspect of marketing homes,
including design, construction and sales.  The Company works with
individual detached housing as well as higher-occupancy dwellings,
including townhouses, condominiums and retirement homes.  In most
cases, the company acquires and develops the land on which these
developments are built, but in some geographic regions, Hovnanian
offers to build their proprietary house designs on private land.
The Company consists of two operating groups, homebuilding and
financial services.  The Company is based in Red Bank, New Jersey.


ISIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Kynamro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Isis Pharmaceuticals
misrepresented the safety of its cholesterol drug Kynamro, and the
share price fell by 22 percent when the truth came out,
shareholders claim in San Diego Federal Court.


JAMES DYER: N.Y. Judge Gives Green Light to New Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Owens, writing for The Australian, reports that a New York
judge has greenlighted a new class action lawsuit against an
Australian commodities trader accused of orchestrating a major
manipulation of global crude oil prices that allegedly netted his
associates AUD50 million in 2008.

It is the second lawsuit slated to proceed against Brisbane's
James Dyer, 45, and his co-defendants after the same US District
Court judge in May cleared for trial a AUD200 million complaint
brought by the Washington-based commodities watchdog, the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission.


KIA MOTORS: Sued Over Misleading Marketing Campaigns for Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kia Motors America, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-06155 (N.D. Calif., December 4, 2012)
is a consumer fraud class action based on Kia Motors' alleged
extensive and misleading marketing campaigns for these vehicle
models: 2011-2012 Optima HEV, 2012-2013 Rio, 2012-2013 Sorrento,
2012-2013 Soul and 2012-2013 Spoilage.

Knowing that fuel efficiency was a primary motivating factor for
car buyers, Kia Motors decided to market these Affected Kia Models
as achieving class-leading gas mileage, including some models with
as much as 40 miles per gallon, Mr. Woodruff contends.
Specifically, he alleges, Kia Motors inflated the results of
mileage testing the Company reported to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and advertised that the affected vehicles
achieved better fuel efficiency than actually achieved.

Mr. Woodruff is a resident of Fairfield, California.  He purchased
a Kia Sorrento vehicle in June 2012.  He said that he made his
decision to purchase a Kia Sorrento after researching, viewing,
and relying on online representations on the Kia Web site and
after discussing the vehicle with a dealership sales
representative.

Kia Motors is a California corporation with its national
headquarters in Irvine, California.  Kia Motors is a subsidiary of
Kia Motors Corporation, a Korean corporation.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          455 Market Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536-3986
          Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
          E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          Anna M. Kohut, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
                  ekirk@.simmonsfirm.com
                  akohut@simmonsfirm.com


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Being Sold to GETCO for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Knight Capital Group is
selling itself to GETCO Holding Co. too cheaply through an unfair
process, for $1.4 billion in a cash and stock deal, shareholders
claim in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court.


LG CHEM: Faces Another Antitrust Class Action Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Michael D'Orazio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LG Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.;
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America;
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony
Corporation; Sony Energy Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics,
Inc.; Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Hitachi,
Ltd.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; and Maxell Corporation of America,
Case No. 3:12-cv-06173 (N.D. Calif., December 5, 2012) is brought
on behalf of those who indirectly purchased Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries from the Defendants.

The Defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix and
stabilize, and artificially raise the prices of Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries, which are found in electronic consumer
products, Mr. D'Orazio alleges.  He says that he brings this
lawsuit on his behalf and seeks to represent a class comprised of
all persons and entities in the United States that indirectly
purchased a Lithium Ion Battery or Lithium Ion Battery Product
from a Defendant during the period from and including January 1,
2002, through the time as the anticompetitive effects of the
Defendants' conduct ceased.

Mr. D'Orazio is a resident of Farmington, Michigan.  During the
Class Period, he purchased a Nintendo Wii, which came equipped
with Samsung brand rechargeable lithium ion battery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PC.
          5 Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com
                  dminerva@forthepeople.com


LITHIA MOTORS: "McClintic" Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit brought
by Kevin McClintic was approved in October 11, 2012, according to
the Company's October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief was filed against the Company (Kevin McClintic
vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of the State
of Washington for King County) alleging the text messaging
activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and consumer
protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each violation, trebled,
plus injunctive relief and attorney fees.  The lawsuit seeks class
action designation for all similarly situated entities and
individuals. The lawsuit was removed to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

On July 5, 2011, the Company participated in a mediation of the
McClintic case and subsequently entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, which was subject to final court
approval.  Under this settlement agreement, the Company agreed to
pay a total of $2.5 million, all of which such amounts will be
reimbursed by the vendor pursuant to contractual indemnification.
These amounts were recorded as a component of other current assets
and accrued liabilities on the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of September 30, 2012.

On October 11, 2012, the court approved the settlement.

On July 5, 2011, a complaint was filed alleging nearly identical
claims, also seeking class action designation (Dan McLaren vs.
Lithia Motors, Civil # 11-810, United States District Court of
Oregon, Portland Division).  Subsequently, the complaint was
amended to include claims against the vendor.  The class
representative in the McLaren case attempted to intervene in the
McClintic case.  This intervention motion was denied on
October 19, 2011.  The McLaren case was dismissed by the court
with prejudice as to Lithia Motors on September 5, 2012.


LITHIA MOTORS: Discovery in "Neese" Opt-Out Members' Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit brought by class members, who
opted out of a class settlement, according to Lithia Motors Inc.'s
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company (Jackie
Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al,
Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI, and in April, 2007, a second case
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at
Anchorage.  In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company,
through its Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that
purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging
customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation
fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to
disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used
vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for
sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the Company receive a
fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve").  The
lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or
three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and
attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action
certification.  Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits,
the Company engaged in settlement discussions with the State of
Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the
first two enumerated practices.  As a result of those discussions,
the Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court
approval and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the
proposed settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to
intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to
the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class (i) for the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes, and (iii) arguing that since the
State's lawsuit against the Company's dealerships did not address
the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers
who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company.  On June
14, 2011, the Trial Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the
size of the classes.  Discovery in this case is ongoing.

The Company says it intends to defend the claims vigorously and
does not believe the novel "dealer reserve" claim has merit.


LKQ CORP: Class Suit vs. Two Product Suppliers Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
LKQ Corporation's class action lawsuit against two aftermarket
product suppliers remains pending, according to the Company's
October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several aftermarket product suppliers.  During the three and nine
month periods ended September 30, 2012, the Company recognized
gains of $0.5 million and $17.2 million, respectively, resulting
from lawsuit settlements with certain of the defendants.  These
gains were recorded as a reduction of Cost of Goods Sold on the
Company's Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income.
The class action is still pending against two defendants, the
results of which are not expected to be material to the Company's
results of operations or cash flows.  If there is a class
settlement with (or a favorable judgment entered against) each of
the remaining defendants, the Company will recognize the gain from
such settlement or judgment when substantially all uncertainties
regarding its timing and amount are resolved and realization is
assured.


MANTRIA CORP: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP on Dec. 31 announced the filing
of a class-action securities lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class
of investors who purchased securities issued by Mantria
Corporation and related entities during the period from September
1, 2007 through November 16, 2009, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired these securities
during the Class Period are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman
attorney Anthony Shapiro at 206-623-7292 or to contact the Hagens
Berman legal team through e-mail at Mantria@hbsslaw.com to discuss
their legal rights.

Investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the case must
move the court no later than sixty days from the date of this
notice.  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.  Class
members need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share
in any possible recovery.

Hagens Berman's lawsuit, filed November 15, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleges that
certain of Mantria's former officers violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Pennsylvania Securities Act and the
Colorado Securities Act, and also includes various common law
claims.

The Complaint alleges that Mantria, through 11 operating divisions
and 32 wholly owned or affiliated companies, purported to be
primarily engaged in the development of several planned
residential communities in rural Tennessee, and the production and
sale of "biochar" -- a charcoal substitute made from organic
waste.  In addition to these primary ventures, Mantria also
claimed, in various investment offerings, to have diverse
operations ranging from mortgage banking to hip-hop record
production.

The Complaint alleges that Mantria raised more than $54 million
from more than 300 investors in securities issued by Mantria
Corporation or Mantria-related entities, including the following:

    Infinite Cash Entertainment, LLC;
    Mantria Renewable Energy Fund, L.P.;
    Mantria Financial, LLC ;
    Mantria Place Renewable Energy Site Development, L.P.;
    Mantria Industries, LLC;
    Carbon Diversion Carlsbad New Mexico Manufacturing Plant, LLC;
    and Mantria Place Eco Village Carbon Fields

The Complaint further alleges that despite Mantria's supposed
business empire, its operations generated no revenue with which to
pay the touted extraordinary investment returns.  Instead, Mantria
only paid investor returns using offering proceeds from new
investors in a classic Ponzi scheme fashion, in violation of
federal and state laws.  The plaintiff in the case seeks to
recover damages on behalf of the class and is represented by
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP and Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett &
Bendesky, P.C.

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with offices
in ten cities across the country.  Founded in 1993, the firm
represents plaintiffs in class actions and multi-state, large-
scale litigation that seek to protect the rights of investors,
consumers, workers and whistleblowers.

If you have any questions about this notice, the action, your
rights or your interests, please contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206)-623-7292
          E-mail: Mantria@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Class Action Over Air-Intake Systems Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a federal putative class
action against Mercedes-Benz over allegedly defective air-intake
systems will go forward, having survived a motion to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs say Mercedes knew of the defect years ago but failed to
inform owners.  The suit, filed by two California vehicle owners,
seeks nationwide class certification for owners and lessees, as
well as certification of a California subclass.


MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's
December 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2012.

In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.  The lawsuits made similar claims,
and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re Miller
Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The lawsuit names
the Company, along with several of its current and former
executive officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David
Hall, and Deloy Miller, as defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege two
causes of action against the defendants: (1) violation of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks money damages against
the Company and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has filed a Motion to
Dismiss the case.  Given the current stage of the proceedings in
this case, the Company currently cannot assess the probability of
losses, or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to
this matter.


MOBILE COUNTY: Suit Over Long-Term Suspensions to Press Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Kirby, writing for Alabama Live, reports that parents and
guardians suing the Mobile County school system over its use of
long-term suspensions will press ahead with the case even though a
federal judge has denied a request to certify it as a class
action.

Chief U.S. District Judge William Steele ruled earlier last year
that class-action status would make the litigation more
complicated without offering any potential benefit to the
plaintiffs.  In a recent interview, an attorney for the Southern
Poverty Law Center said additional plaintiffs could file
complaints.

"We're moving forward," said Jadine Johnson, who represents five
plaintiffs.  "We continue to litigate the merits of the case."

The plaintiffs contend that principals improperly have imposed
long-term suspensions -- lasting 10 days or longer -- without
giving the students notice or an opportunity to defend themselves
at hearings.

The Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center had sought to
proceed as a class action, meaning the named plaintiffs would
represent the interests of all similarly situated students.  The
plaintiffs have said the school system improperly suspended 1,743
students since the 2009-10 academic year.

But Judge Steele noted that the plaintiffs do not seek monetary
damages, only a court order enforcing students' right to due
process hearings before long-term suspensions can be imposed.

"Those remedies would be identical whether this action is
certified as a class action . . . or not," he wrote.  "They would
inure to the benefit of current and future MCPS students, whether
those students are labeled members of a class or not."

A class action "would yield inefficiencies and complexities that
would needlessly burden litigant and judicial resources alike, all
for the sake of obtaining a class injunction that would be
identical in scope, breadth and effect to an individual injunction
awarded in favor of the individual plaintiffs alone," the judge
wrote.

Meanwhile, attorneys from both sides continue to gather additional
information in preparation for a nonjury trial scheduled for
Aug. 1.

"This is very much still alive," Ms. Johnson said.


NEW JERSEY: Pohatcong Supports Red-Light Camera Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Express-Times' Tommy Rowan and The Associated Press report
that Pohatcong Township supports the settlement announced on
Dec. 28 awarding partial refunds to drivers ticketed through
dozens of red-light cameras in New Jersey.

The settlement applies only to cameras operated by Arizona-based
American Traffic Solutions, the camera vendor for Pohatcong and 17
other municipalities.  The state had found the timing of these
towns' yellow lights wasn't officially certified until July 25.

"I think Pohatcong is pleased basically that our vendors stepped
up and resolved the issue," township attorney Kevin Benbrook said
on Dec. 29.  "And we are pleased to keep the program going."

Under the settlement of a $1.2 million class-action lawsuit,
nearly half a million drivers who received the tickets will
receive $6 refunds on tickets ranging from $85 to $140, The Star-
Ledger of Newark reported on Dec. 28.

Motorists are eligible if they received tickets before July 25 in
the cities of Jersey City, Linden and Rahway; the boroughs of
Glassboro, Palisades Park and Roselle Park; and the townships of
Brick, Deptford, East Brunswick, East Windsor, Gloucester,
Lawrence, Monroe, Piscataway, Union, Wayne and Woodbridge in
addition to Pohatcong.

New Jersey suspended the pilot program in June, until
municipalities could re-certify their yellow light timing.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit Over Red Light Camera Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Luceno, Richard Marks and Brian Hughes, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of New York,
New York City Department of Transportation, and Unidentified
Entities A through Z, Case No. 654239/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
December 5, 2012) challenges the Defendants' uniform policy of
issuing illegitimate citations and collecting fines without proper
cause through the operation of the red light camera monitoring
system.

The putative Class alleges that the Defendants have implemented
and currently maintain a Red Light Camera Program whereby the
duration of the yellow traffic signal is shorter than allowed by
law.  The action raises claims under New York Civil Rights Law for
fines imposed without proper cause, material misrepresentations
and unjust enrichment as a result of the Red Light Camera Program,
the Plaintiffs contend.

Mr. Luceno is a resident of Westchester County, New York.  Mr.
Marks is a resident of Staten Island, New York.  Mr. Hughes is a
resident of Cherry Hill, New Jersey.  The Plaintiffs, like all
other Class members, were issued notices of liability by the
Defendants during the class period based on the Defendants'
operation of a Red Light Camera Program within the County of New
York.  The Plaintiffs each paid a fine to the Defendants as set
forth in the Notice of Liability.

New York City is a municipality and subdivision of the state of
New York, organized and existing under the New York City Charter,
and has all the powers and duties set forth in the New York City
Charter and Administrative Code.  DOT is a City agency or
department created by and existing under Chapter 55 of the New
York City Charter.  Defendants A through Z are corporations, who
manufactured, implemented, and otherwise serviced the Red Light
Camera Program for the City and DOT during the relevant class
period.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          Adam J. Gana, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lufrano, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          E-mail: Hunter@NapoliBern.com
                  Agana@NapoliBern.com
                  CLufrano@NapoliBern.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Santoli, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. SANTOLI
          32 East 57th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 279-6996


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Directors Subject to More Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that officers and directors of Overseas Shipholding Group
Inc. are now defending class lawsuits in both state and federal
courts in New York.  Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley and HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc., among the underwriters in a $300 million
unsecured debt offering in March 2010, are also named as
defendants.  The new suit was filed on Dec. 24 in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan.

                   About Overseas Shipholding

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., headquartered in New York, is
one of the largest publicly traded tanker companies in the world,
engaged primarily in the ocean transportation of crude oil and
petroleum products.  OSG owns or operates 111 vessels that
transport oil and petroleum products throughout the world.

Overseas Shipholding Group and 180 affiliates filed voluntary
Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 12-20000) on
Nov. 14, 2012.  Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh oversees the case.
Greylock Partners LLC Chief Executive John Ray serves as chief
reorganization officer.  Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
serves as OSG's Chapter 11 counsel, while Chilmark Partners LLC
serves as financial adviser.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC will
provide certain administrative services.

The Debtors disclosed $4.15 billion in assets and $2.67 billion in
liabilities as of June 30, 2012.  Liabilities include $1.49
billion on an unsecured credit agreement with DNB Bank ASA as
agent.  In addition to the secured Chinese loan, there is $518
million in unsecured notes and debentures plus $267 million on
ship mortgages taken down to finance nine vessels.

The Export-Import Bank of China, owed $312 million used for the
construction of five tankers, is represented by Louis R. Strubeck,
Jr., Esq., and Kristian W. Gluck, Esq., at Fulbright & Jaworski
LLP in Dallas; David L. Barrack, Esq., and Beret Flom, Esq., at
Fulbright & Jaworski in New York; and John Knight, Esq., and
Christopher Samis, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger PA.  Chilmark
Partners, LLC serves as financial and restructuring advisor.

Roberta A. DeAngelis, U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed a
five-member official committee of unsecured creditors in the case
of Overseas Shipholding Group Inc.


ROSS STORES: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc. has been named
in class action lawsuits alleging violation of wage and hour and
other employment laws.  Class action litigation remains pending as
of October 27, 2012.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class
action litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 5,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 27, 2012.

Ross Stores, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate two brands of
off-price retail apparel and home fashion stores -- Ross Dress for
Less(R) and dd's DISCOUNTS(R) stores.  Both brands target value-
conscious women and men between the ages of 18 and 54.  Ross
target customers are primarily from middle income households,
while dd's DISCOUNTS target customers are typically from more
moderate income households.


SILVERCORP METALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Dec. 31 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action on behalf of investors purchasing
shares of Silvercorp Metals, Inc. during the period from June 24,
2010 through September 13, 2011.  The lawsuit alleges that
Silvercorp and certain of its management violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial
information.  The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

To join the Silvercorp class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com,or call Jonathan Horne or Laurence
Rosen toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
jhorne@rosenlegal.com or lrosen@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The complaint charges that Silvercorp overstated the level of
silver production at its mines, as well as the quality and
quantity of its ore reserves.

On September 13, 2011, analyst firm Alfred Little issued a report
claiming that Silvercorp had inflated the size of its revenue,
earnings, assets, and operations in its reports filed with the
SEC.  This adverse disclosure caused Silvercorp's share price to
drop, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must make a request to
the Court no later than March 1, 2013.

If you wish to join the Class Action, or discuss your rights and
interests in Silvercorp stock, please visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comto join the class action.  You may also
contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
lrosen@rosenlegal.com   or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SOTTILE SECURITY: Sued For Not Paying Overtime Premium Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Devon Perry, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Sottile Security International, Inc.; and
Salvatore Sottile; jointly and severally, Case No. 1:12-cv-08848
(S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2012) argues that pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and
the collective action members are entitled to:

   * unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which
     the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and the collective
     action members overtime premium pay, as required by law;

   * liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime wages;

   * liquidated damages for failure to furnish the Plaintiff a
     notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring; and

   * attorney's fees and costs of the action.

Devon Perry is a resident of Queens County, New York.

Sottile Security is a New York business corporation with its
principal place of business in New York County.  Salvatore Sottile
is a resident of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


STANDARD & POOR'S: Issued False & Misleading Ratings, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Tolin and Jeffrey Stark, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Standard & Poor's Financial
Services, LLC and The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:12-
cv-08842 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2012) is brought on behalf of
shareholders of Fannie Mae Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series
T ("Rated Stock") against the Defendants for violations of New
York law.

Fannie Mae marketed and sold the Rated Stocks to unsuspecting
Class members as a safe investment that would provide Class
members with an 8.25% dividend per year, the Plaintiffs assert.
In order to persuade investors that the Rated Stocks were a safe
investment, Fannie Mae included in its offering circular an "AA-"
S&P rating that was designed to induce investors into purchasing
the Rated Stock as a safe investment, the Plaintiffs explain.
They contend that S&P knew or should have known that its rating
was false and misleading when made and that investors would
reasonably rely on its published rating in making a decision to
purchase the Rated Stock.

Mr. Stark purchased 1,000 shares of the Rated Stock on May 13,
2008, for $25 per share.  Mr. Tolin purchased 1,000 shares of the
Rated Stock on July 10, 2008, for $20.47 per share.

McGraw-Hill is a New York corporation based in New York.  McGraw-
Hill acquired Standard & Poor's in 1966 as a subsidiary entity.
Standard & Poor's is a limited liability company based in New
York.  Standard & Poor's is "nationally recognized statistical
rating organization" that holds approximately a 40% share of the
world's credit ratings market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com
                  mgardy@gardylaw.com


STARLINE TOURS: Employees File Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Starline Tours of Hollywood
stiffs employees for overtime and breaks other labor laws, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teavana Holdings Inc. continues to defend a wage and hour class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
December 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2012.

On December 28, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit styled
Chavez v. Teavana Corp. alleging wage and hour violations of the
California Labor Code for General Managers in California was filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and other putative class
members, compensatory damages, restitution, putative and exemplary
damages, penalties, interest and other relief.  The Company
disputes the material allegations in the complaint and intends to
defend the action vigorously.  Due to inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the lawsuit is in early procedural stages,
the Company cannot at this time accurately predict the ultimate
outcome, or any potential liability, of the matter.

Teavana Holdings Inc. is a specialty retailer offering more than
100 varieties of premium loose-leaf teas, authentic artisanal
teawares and other tea-related merchandise.  The Company offers
its products through 301 company-owned stores in 41 states and
Canada, 19 franchised stores primarily in Mexico, as well as
through its Web site, http://www.teavana.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teavana Holdings Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's December 14, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 14, 2012, the Company, Starbucks Corporation
("Starbucks") and Taj Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Starbucks, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), whereby each outstanding share of
Teavana common stock, will automatically be converted into the
right to receive $15.50 in cash, without interest (the "Merger
Consideration").  Each Company option outstanding immediately
prior to the merger, whether or not then vested and exercisable,
will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive, for
each share of common stock subject to such stock option, an amount
in cash, without interest, equal to the excess, if any, of the
Merger Consideration over the per share exercise price of such
option.  The consummation of the Merger is subject to customary
closing conditions, including (i) receiving the required approval
of Teavana's stockholders, which approval was effected after
execution of the Merger Agreement, by written consent of holders
of Teavana common stock representing approximately 74% of the
outstanding shares of common stock, (ii) 20 days having elapsed
since the mailing to Teavana's stockholders of a definitive
information statement with respect to adoption of the Merger
Agreement, and (iii) the expiration or termination of the waiting
period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of
1976, as amended (the "HSR Act").  The information statement with
respect to adoption of the Merger Agreement was mailed to
Teavana's stockholders on December 7, 2012.  Early termination of
the waiting period under the HSR Act was granted on November 27,
2012.

Andrew T. Mack, SKM Equity Fund III, L.P., SKM Investment Fund and
Jurgen W. Link, the holders of 28,749,196 shares of Teavana's
common stock (collectively, the "Principal Stockholders"), which
constitute approximately 74% of the voting power of the
outstanding shares of Teavana's common stock, executed a written
consent approving and adopting the Merger Agreement.  As a result,
no further approval of the stockholders of Teavana is required to
adopt the Merger Agreement.

On November 19, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Rosenblum
v. Teavana Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2012CV224005, was
filed against the Company, the members of its Board of Directors,
Starbucks and Merger Sub in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia.  The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all the Company's stockholders (excluding the defendants and
their affiliates).  The complaint alleges that the members of the
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary obligations to the
Company's stockholders in approving the Merger Agreement and by
failing to make adequate disclosures to the Company's
stockholders, and that the other named defendants aided and
abetted the breach of those duties.  More specifically, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) the consideration
to be paid to the Company's stockholders in the proposed
transaction is inadequate; (ii) the non-solicitation, termination
fee and matching rights provisions of the Merger Agreement will
hinder and deter other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire
the Company on better terms than the proposed transaction; and
(iii) the members of the Board of Directors are conflicted.  The
complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the completion of the
Merger, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On November 27, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Rubin v.
Teavana Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 8069-VCN, was filed
against the Company, the members of its Board of Directors, SKM
Partners, LLC ("SKM"), Starbucks and Merger Sub in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all the Company's stockholders (excluding the
defendants and their affiliates).  The complaint alleges that the
members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
obligations to the Company's stockholders in approving the Merger
Agreement and by failing to make adequate disclosures to the
Company's stockholders, and that the Company, Starbucks and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the breach of those duties.  The complaint
also alleges that several large stockholders of the Company,
including the Company's Chief Executive Officer and SKM, breached
their fiduciary obligations to the Company's stockholders by
executing the written consent approving the Merger Agreement.
More specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
(i) the Merger Consideration is inadequate; (ii) the execution of
the written consent and the non-solicitation, termination fee and
matching rights provisions of the Merger Agreement restrict the
Company from soliciting other offers on more favorable terms than
the proposed transaction; and (iii) the members of the Board of
Directors are conflicted.  The complaint seeks various forms of
relief, including injunctive relief that would, if granted,
prevent the completion of the Merger, and an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses.

On December 4, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Bekkerman,
et. al. v. Teavana Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 12A-10148-2,
was filed against the Company, the members of its Board of
Directors, Starbucks and Merger Sub in the Superior Court of
Gwinnett County of the State of Georgia.  The complaint purports
to be brought on behalf of all the Company's stockholders
(excluding the defendants and their affiliates).  The complaint
alleges that the members of the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Company's stockholders in approving
the Merger Agreement and related agreements and by failing to make
adequate disclosures to the Company's stockholders, and that the
Company, Starbucks and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breach of
those duties.  More specifically, the complaint alleges, among
other things, that (i) the Merger Consideration is inadequate;
(ii) the termination fee, no-solicitation, and matching rights
provisions of the Merger Agreement restrict the Company from
soliciting other offers on more favorable terms than the proposed
transaction; and (iii) the members of the Board of Directors are
conflicted.  The complaint seeks various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
completion of the Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

A fourth class action was filed in the State of Georgia on
December 7, 2012, and was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
on December 13, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, the parties to the Stockholder Actions
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
an agreement in principle to resolve the Stockholder Actions.
Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel
to the plaintiffs, the MOU stipulates that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement
will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the settlement
contemplated by the MOU will be submitted to the Superior Court of
Fulton County, State of Georgia, for approval.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the Georgia court, the Stockholder Actions
will be dismissed with prejudice.  As part of the settlement, the
defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the
disclosures in the Definitive Information Statement were
inadequate but have agreed to provide supplemental disclosures.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the Merger or the
amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

Teavana believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws; however, to seek to avoid the risk
of the Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the
Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions,
Teavana has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.
Teavana and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
the Stockholder Actions, and expressly maintain that, to the
extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with
their fiduciary and other legal duties and are providing these
supplemental disclosures solely to seek to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay
to the closing of the Merger that might arise from further
litigation.

Teavana Holdings Inc. is a specialty retailer offering more than
100 varieties of premium loose-leaf teas, authentic artisanal
teawares and other tea-related merchandise.  The Company offers
its products through 301 company-owned stores in 41 states and
Canada, 19 franchised stores primarily in Mexico, as well as
through its Web site, http://www.teavana.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Fatal Crash Suit to Proceed Despite Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a New Hampshire lawyer says a
suit against Toyota stemming from a fatal 2009 crash in
Peterborough will go on, despite the announcement that the company
will pay more than $1 billion to settle a class-action suit.

The New Hampshire suit says Toyota's problem with unintended
acceleration caused an Oct. 2009 crash that killed four people.

One of those killed, Stephen Lagakos, was driving a Toyota
Highlander, and the lawsuit alleges the Route 202 crash was caused
by unintended acceleration that Toyota could have prevented.

Manchester lawyer Scott Harris tells the Concord Monitor that the
settlement was of a suit by Toyota owners who said their vehicles'
value diminished after several recalls.  Mr. Harris says the
Peterborough case is different, because it's a wrongful death
suit.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging a California trial court's dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s December 19, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended October 31, 2012.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers, former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.

On August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National
Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.
Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on
October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control
person liability against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, based on allegations that the
Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding the Company's business and operations
during the putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss
on December 31, 2008.  The court granted the Company's motion on
May 26, 2009 and dismissed the consolidated amended class action
complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The
proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009
at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable
settlement.  Lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on
December 3, 2009 followed by a second amended complaint filed on
January 19, 2010.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint and the hearing on the motion was held on
May 17, 2010.  In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the
Company's motion, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint on the basis that it had newly
discovered evidence.  Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by
the court, the Company submitted its motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint and lead plaintiff filed its opposition,
following which the court took the matter under submission without
further hearing.  On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in the
Company's favor and dismissed the consolidated securities class
action without leave to amend.

On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed
its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson,
and Craig Bondy.  Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal
on July 28, 2011.  The Company filed its answering brief on
September 28, 2011 and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on
October 31, 2011.  A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was
held before a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012.
There has been no ruling on this appeal to date.

Verifone Systems Inc. is in the business of secure electronic
payment solutions and services.  It provides expertise, solutions
and services that add value to the point of sale with merchant-
operated, consumer-facing and self-service payment systems for the
financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum, government,
transportation and healthcare vertical markets.  The Company is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal in Stockholder Suit in Israel Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the stockholder class action lawsuit filed in Tel
Aviv, Israel, against VeriFone Systems, Inc. remains pending,
according to the Company's December 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2012.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on
behalf of purchasers of its stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly incurred by
the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous
financial reports.  The Company filed a motion to stay the action,
in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on
March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.
Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court
ruled in the Company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining the Company's liability.  On October 7, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.  The Company's response to
plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 18, 2009.  The
District Court has stayed its proceedings until the Supreme Court
rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.  On January 27,
2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the court
dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed
the case back to the District Court.  The Supreme Court instructed
the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class action should
be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S.
law.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is
the applicable law.  Following a hearing on plaintiffs'
application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the
proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class
action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the
District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the
Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the
Israeli Supreme Court.  In August 2010, plaintiff filed an
application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia
Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the
outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and
requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record.
Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli
District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding
the applicability of U.S. law to the Israeli class action, as well
as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor
of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison.  On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District
Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and
reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israeli
class action is U.S. law.  The Israeli District Court also ordered
that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the
decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.

On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the District Court's ruling.  VeriFone
filed an amended response on December 28, 2011.  On January 1,
2012, the Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application
by three justices.  On July 2, 2012, the Supreme Court ordered
VeriFone to file an updated notice on the status of the
proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012.
On October 11, 2012, VeriFone filed an updated status notice in
the Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class
action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Verifone Systems Inc. is in the business of secure electronic
payment solutions and services.  It provides expertise, solutions
and services that add value to the point of sale with merchant-
operated, consumer-facing and self-service payment systems for the
financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum, government,
transportation and healthcare vertical markets.  The Company is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s settlement of merger-related class action
lawsuits was approved in November 2012, according to the Company's
December 19, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2012.

On August 4, 2011, VeriFone Systems, Inc. completed its
acquisition of Hypercom Corporation, a provider of electronic
payment solutions and value-added services at the point of
transaction, by means of a merger of one of the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiaries with and into Hypercom such that Hypercom
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of VeriFone following the
merger.

In connection with the announcement of the Company's merger with
Hypercom, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in
Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging variously, among other
things, that the board of directors of Hypercom breached its
fiduciary duties in not securing a higher price in the merger and
that VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC and Francisco
Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged breach.  The
actions seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  An
agreement was reached between the parties to resolve the
litigation, subject to court approval, based on confirmatory
discovery, enhanced public disclosures, and, reimbursement by
Hypercom of a portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in an
amount that is not material to the Company's results of
operations.  In November 2012, the court approved the terms of the
settlement as agreed between the parties.

Verifone Systems Inc. is in the business of secure electronic
payment solutions and services.  It provides expertise, solutions
and services that add value to the point of sale with merchant-
operated, consumer-facing and self-service payment systems for the
financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum, government,
transportation and healthcare vertical markets.  The Company is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


WHIRLPOOL: Continues to Defend Washing Machine Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Feldman & Morgado, P.A. reports that a case dating back to 2005 --
the time when a consumer purchased a Whirlpool front-loading
washing machine and subsequently experienced pervasive mold issues
-- continues to undergo legal challenges by Whirlpool.  The 2005
purchaser turned out to be one of many consumers who experienced
the mold problem, with some suffering health issues related to the
mold.

The decision published by the United States Court of Appeals for
the 6th Circuit explains the basic criteria used to certify a
class in a class action suit as follows:

  * The class must include so many members as to make individual
lawsuit filings impractical
  * Members of the class must have questions of law or fact in
common
  * Representative parties for the class must have claims or
defenses typical to members of the class
  * The representative parties must fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class

The burden of proof that ascertains a class meets these
requirements falls to the plaintiff.  While Whirlpool argued
against certification based on the grounds that the majority of
owners of the models in question had no mold issues with their
washers, in May 2012 the district court found in favor of
certifying the class.  In September of 2012, Whirlpool requested
that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the certification of the
class.

A notable point of this case involves the potential complexity
involved in filing class action suits.  To date, attorneys still
cannot initiate the product liability suit that might compensate
consumers for the issues they experienced associated with this
product.


WHITEHAVEN INCOME: Faces Suit Over Illegal Interest Rates
---------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Chestnut, on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of
individuals who has been charged illegal interest rates by the
defendants v. Whitehaven Income Fund I, LLC; Whitehaven Sherwood
Forest, LLC; Whitehaven S.M.H. Fund I, LLC; and Archstone Castle
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-08854 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2012)
is brought against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and
deceptive acts and practices.

Whitehaven engages in a practice of making loans at illegal rates
of interest to plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, Mr.
Chestnut alleges.  He adds that Whitehaven secures these loans
against the damage award or, alternatively, settlement payment
from class members' personal injury litigation.

Mr. Chestnut was a resident of Union City, Georgia, at the time he
received a loan from Whitehaven.

Whitehaven P.I. Fund, Whitehaven Sherwood Forest and Whitehaven
S.M.H. Fund I are Delaware limited liability companies based in
New York.  Archstone Castle Holdings is a North Carolina limited
liability company based in Orange County, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven E. Armstrong, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN E. ARMSTRONG PLLC
          61 Broadway, Suite 3000
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 708-3658
          Facsimile: (212) 344-7285

               - and -

          Evan S. Rothfarb, Esq.
          ROTHFARB LAW, PLLC
          61 Broadway, Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 480-1010
          Facsimile: (212) 480-1011


* Accounting Firms Avoided Shareholder Class Action in 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Glater, writing for The New York Times, reports that
the accountants who service publicly traded companies are likely
to have something to be thankful for in 2012: shareholders are not
filing federal securities fraud lawsuits against them.

Just 10 years ago, public company accountants were in the cross
hairs of shareholders, regulators and prosecutors.  A criminal
indictment destroyed Enron's auditor, Arthur Andersen.  Congress
created a new regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, to oversee the profession.  And in dozens of lawsuits in
the years afterward, shareholders named accountants as co-
defendants when alleging accounting fraud.

But things have changed.  According to NERA Economic Consulting,
which tracks shareholder litigation and reported on the decline in
accounting firm defendants in its midyear report in July 2012, not
one accounting firm has been named a defendant so far last year.
One of the study's co-authors, Ron I. Miller, confirmed that the
trend has continued at least through November.

That prompts the question, why don't shareholders sue accountants
anymore?

"To the extent that firms have been burned for a lot of money,
they have some pretty strong incentives to try to behave,"
Mr. Miller said.  "That's the hopeful side of the legal system:
You hope that if you put in penalties, that those penalties change
people's actions."

The less positive alternative, he added, is that public companies
"have gotten better at hiding it."

From 2005 to 2009, according to the NERA report, 12 percent of
securities class action cases included accounting firm co-
defendants.  The range of federal securities fraud class action
cases filed per year in that period was 132 to 244.

The absence of accounting firm defendants in 2012 can probably be
explained at least in part by court decisions; the Supreme Court
has issued rulings, as in Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v.
Scientific-Atlanta Inc. in 2008, making it more difficult to
recover damages from third parties in fraud cases.

So perhaps more shareholder suits would take aim at accountants,
if the plaintiffs believed that their claims would survive a
defendant's motion to dismiss.  And it is possible that plaintiffs
will add accounting firm as defendants to existing cases in the
future, if claimants get information to support such claims.

Over all, fewer shareholder class action lawsuits are based on
allegations of accounting fraud, as opposed to other types of
fraud.  The NERA midyear report found that in the first six months
of 2012, about 25 percent of complaints in securities class action
cases included allegations of accounting fraud, down from nearly
40 percent in all of 2011.

Perhaps the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the legislative response to the
accounting scandals of the early 2000s, actually worked,
Mr. Miller said.

"There's been a lot of complaining about SOX, and certainly the
compliance costs are high for smaller publicly traded companies,"
he said, but accounting fraud "is to a large extent what SOX was
intended to stop."

Public company accountants still have potential civil liability to
worry about, said Joseph A. Grundfest, a former commissioner of
the Securities and Exchange Commission who teaches at Stanford Law
School.  Regulators, he said, are investigating potential
misconduct involving accounting firms.

"There's some coal in that stocking," Professor Grundfest said,
"because all of the major public accounting firms have their
knickers in a knot with the S.E.C. over accounting practices
involving their China affiliates."


* Class Action Measures Big Boost for Small Investors in India
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indian Express reports that with the Lok Sabha clearing the
Companies Bill, 2011, the biggest boost for the small investor
comes in the form of the provision for class-action lawsuits,
which can allow a group of investors with common interest in a
matter to sue the management of a firm, its auditors or a section
of shareholders in case of suspected wrongdoing, an option not
available under the current regulations.

Under Section 245 and 246 of the Bill, class-action suits may be
filed by investors in a court of law if they believe that the
affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner detrimental
to the interest of the company and its shareholders.  Enabling
such class-action suits should, in the long-run, help improve the
quality of financial reporting as well as the quality of corporate
governance among firms.

The importance of the provision can be gauged by the experience of
the Satyam fraud.  Well over three years after the scandal broke;
Indian investors are yet to get any significant compensation in
the 8,000-crore fraud allegedly committed by the promoters of
Satyam Computer Services.  But some of their counterparts in the
U.S., who owned American depositary receipts, have made the
company commit to pay $125 million in settlement by taking
recourse to the strong class-action framework.

Other provision in the Bill that has arguably ignited the biggest
debate is the provision of mandatory spending on corporate social
responsibility (CSR).  The legislation, to be now introduced in
the Rajya Sabha during the budget session, has put the
philanthropy by India Inc. back in the limelight.  Even as
corporate have largely voiced their concerns over the mandatory
nature of the provision, the jury is still out on whether the CSR
spending track record will, in the coming years, impact the
valuation of a company by investors.

The concept of mandatory CSR spends, in the Indian context,
according to analysts, it would take some time to sink in.  But as
has been the experience in the West, as consumers and investors
become more socially aware, they are more likely to prefer
companies that have a better tract record on discharging their
social commitments, including possibly CSR activities, as compared
to those who are found wanting on these fronts.  This might not
work over a short-term horizon, but in the long run, those
adhering to the norms are likely to be preferred by investors, job
seekers, advertisers, among others.

This is precisely the point that the government is banking on, by
making it mandatory for firms to spend a share of profits but
stopping short of prescribing a penalty for those not in
compliance, but merely the need to mention this in their annual
reports.  Peer pressure, as they say, is a big force multiplier.

According to the Bill, every company having net worth or net
profit of more than Rs 500 crore or turnover of more than Rs 1,000
crore will have to "ensure" that it spends at least 2 per cent of
the average net profits of the company made during the last three
financial years towards CSR activities.  In case it does not, the
company will have to give an explanation and will have to disclose
it in the annual accounts.  However, given the wide scope of
definition of CSR, the company can undertake a wide range of
activities and fulfill the norm.

The question is whether spending money towards these activities
yield pays off in form of a better valuation and perhaps high
shareholder preference for stocks of such companies.  Kaushik
Dutta, director at Thought Arbitrage Research Institute (TARI)
says that there is no co-relation between the valuation of a
company and the amount it spends towards the society.  All the
same, he said, "There are certain social funds which invest only
in such companies which have ethical investments," that is, such
companies avoid investing in companies associated with alcohol,
tobacco, gambling, violating environmental laws and involved in
child labor."

In fact, though the exercise helps in better brand building,
shareholders view CSR with skepticism, as more spending on CSR
means less profit for dividend.

"So you can say that CSR is in a sense anti-shareholder. In my
view, if at all the CSR activities have to be done, they should be
carried out by the promoters and not the company.  With it
becoming mandatory, it will end up as more of an accounting
activity," Prithvi Haldia, CMD, Prime Database, said.

On the other hand, the promoters of CSR activities say that the
more socially responsible a company becomes, the more goodwill it
earns, making it an obvious ethical choice for some investors.
CSR, as a definition, does impact the way a company is viewed,
Bhaskar Chatterjee, director general and CEO of the Indian
Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), said.

"Notionally, you can say, it does happen.  In the last 3-4 years,
consumers and stakeholders have become far more conscious of
products and the services being offered to the community.  The
companies that are seen to have diluted their commitments to
society are not being viewed in a positive light," he said.

The trigger for this change, he said, is more awareness and
education among people about their surroundings, environment,
social values across the world.

According to a research paper by Caroline Flammer of the MIT Sloan
School of Management titled 'Corporate Social Responsibility and
Stock Prices: The Environmental Awareness of Shareholders' dated
May 2012, anecdotal evidence in the US suggests that "a company's
environmental footprint can affect stock prices."

Taking the example of British Petroleum's (BP) oil spill incident
in April 2010, the paper sheds light on how the oil spill that
contaminated a large area of marine environment along the Gulf of
Mexico, affected BP's stock prices.  While on the day of the
incident, BP's stock price was $59.5.  In just two months the
stock price had dropped to $28.9.  On the other hand, 11 years
earlier, in the Exxon's oil spill case in March 1989, considered
one of the most damaging incidents to the environment, the
company's stock price decreased only marginally.  On the day of
the incident, Exxon stock price was $44.5.  It went down to $41.75
in April, quickly recovering to its pre-incident level by June
1989.  Analysts point to the fact that investor response to events
such as the Exxon oil spill over two decades ago was much more
muted that the BP experience in 2010, reflecting the increase in
investor perceptiveness to such incidents.

Sanjay Mukherjee, professor of business ethics at IIM Shillong,
said that with the increasing awareness among investors, the trend
of investment in companies with a strong CSR record is likely to
grow.  The changing notion of CSR has prompted the companies to
carry such activities not only for common people but also for
stakeholders, he said.  "Earlier, CSR was philanthropy but now
it's more participative in nature," he said.

Back then, the companies wanted to change their image from profit-
hungry entities to magnanimous philanthropists.  The investors do
buy shares based on company rating and peer group suggestion, a
shift in buying behavior is bound to happen with changing times,
he said.

All in all, the concept of CSR as a core function of a company, is
still in early stages.  But as companies that set the benchmarks
by extending themselves beyond their narrow commercial interests
beginning to command greater respect, the mandatory CSR spend
declaration could spur thing on in the coming years.

                       Asbestos Litigation

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

Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C
have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly
based on exposure to asbestos. While there have been only a few
such cases that name Kaanapali Land, there are a substantial
number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland
(primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land are
allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and
cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-
containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below.
Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named
will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however,
there can be no assurance in this regard.

On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-
count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and
recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief
as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an
insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity
various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to
asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none
of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or
policies in question, a judicial determination of the material
terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff
sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms,
rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the
policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that
plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali
Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered
by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance
policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled
this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of
$1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in
partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. The deadline for filing
proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in
October 2008. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land filed claims
that aggregated approximately $26,800,000, relating to both
secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali
Land. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San
Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims,
filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately 700 claimants.
While it is not likely that a significant number of these
claimants have a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous
defense, it is unknown how the trustee will deal with these
claims. It is not expected, however, that the Company will receive
any material additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C.

Kaanapali Land, LLC, is the reorganized entity resulting from the
Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii, LLC (now known as
KLC Land Company, LLC ("KLC Land")), certain of its subsidiaries
(together with KLC Land, the "KLC Debtors") and FHT Corporation
("FHTC" and, together with the KLC Debtors, the "Debtors") under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002.  It is
involved in agriculture and land development in Hawaii.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Has 2 Pending Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc., and Thermon Holding Corp. have two
currently pending asbestos-related lawsuits against them,
according to the Companies' Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "Since 1999, we have been named as one of many
defendants in 16 personal injury suits alleging exposure to
asbestos from our products. None of the cases alleges or has
alleged premises liability. Two cases are currently pending.
Insurers are defending us in one of the two lawsuits, and we
expect that an insurer will defend us in the remaining matter. Of
the concluded suits, there were seven cost of defense settlements
and the remainder were dismissed without payment. There are no
claims unrelated to asbestos exposure for which coverage has been
sought under the policies that are providing coverage.  We can
give no assurances we will prevail in any of these matters."

Thermon Group Holdings, Inc., provides thermal solutions for
process industries. The Company provides a range of products,
including heating cables, tubing bundles and control systems, and
services, including design optimization, engineering, installation
and maintenance services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "The Company is a defendant along with a
number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have
or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of
exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos
sold by one or more named defendants. Due to the noninformative
nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of
the complaints state valid claims against us. Certain insurance
carriers have informed us that the primary policies for the period
August 1, 1970-1973, have been exhausted and that the carriers
will no longer provide a defense under those policies. We have
requested that the carriers substantiate this situation. The
Company believes it has additional policies available for other
years which have been ignored by the carriers. Because settlement
payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have
been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes when settlement
payments are applied to these additional policies, it will have
availability under the years deemed exhausted. The Company does
not believe that the asserted exhaustion of the primary insurance
coverage for this period will have a material adverse effect on
the financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved
in the defense of the suits and the significant number of policy
years and policy limits, to which these insurance carriers are
insuring us, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not
material to our consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

IntriCon Corporation is an international company engaged in
designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing body-worn
devices. IntriCon serves the body-worn device market by designing,
developing, engineering and manufacturing micro-miniature
products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies and
complete assemblies, primarily for bio-telemetry devices, hearing
instruments and professional audio communication devices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Still Defending PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2012.

The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 280
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 700 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has
alleged against each named defendant compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each
named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the
amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned
above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of
our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's
injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. conducts its business primarily through
the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio
Industries, Inc. The Company is an industrial supply chain
logistics and diversified manufacturing business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Still Defends 1,113 Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
An indirect subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has been
named as a defendant in 1,113 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort
claims as of September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

A subsidiary of BNS Holding, Inc., has been named as a defendant
in 1,113 and 1,020 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as
of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The
claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through June 30,
2012. In many cases these claims involved more than 100
defendants. Of the claims filed, 891 and 694 were dismissed,
settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of
September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Of the
claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3,000. There
can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000,000, with $2,282,000 and $1,660,000 at
September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, in
estimated remaining self insurance retention (deductible). There
is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there
is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage
was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989
contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain
circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also,
there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS
Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the
filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits.
None of these toxic-tort claims have gone to trial and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. In
addition, there can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims;
and, that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its
estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an
amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated
financial statements.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. is a global diversified holding
company that engages in multiple businesses through consolidated
subsidiaries, associated companies and other interests.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCOM Group Unit Still Defends Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
CCOM Group, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend lawsuits
relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, 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.

Universal Supply Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, is a New York corporation ("Universal").  On June 25,
1999, Universal acquired substantially all of the assets of
Universal Supply Group, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, including
its name, pursuant to the terms of a purchase agreement.
Subsequent to the acquisition, Universal Supply Group, Inc. (the
selling corporation) formerly known as Universal Engineering Co.,
Inc., changed its name to Hilco, Inc.  Hilco, Inc. -- "Universal
Predecessor" -- acquired the assets of Amber Supply Co., Inc.,
formerly known as Amber Oil Burner Supply Co., Inc., in 1998,
prior to Hilco's sale of assets to Universal.  The majority
shareholders of Hilco, Inc. were John A. Hildebrandt and Paul H.
Hildebrandt.

The Company understands that the Universal Predecessor and many
other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey
(Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury
due to asbestos. As of September 30, 2012, there existed 7
plaintiffs in these lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos
products, or products containing asbestos, by the Universal
Predecessor. Subsequent to September 30, 2012, 1 action was
dismissed, which results in 6 remaining plaintiffs in these
lawsuits. The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of September 30, 2012, 2 filed
actions in 2012, 3 filed actions in 2011 and 2 filed actions in
2010. There are 210 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 17 other plaintiffs that have settled as of
September 30, 2012 for a total of $3,364,500 paid by defendants
other than Universal. There has been no judgment against the
Universal Predecessor.

The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 38 plaintiffs; of
these, 1 filed an action in 2012, 1 filed an action in 2010, 11
filed actions in 2007, 6 filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions
in 2005, 5 filed actions in 2001, 1 filed an action in 2000, and 2
filed actions in 1999. Thirty-four plaintiffs naming Universal
have had their actions dismissed and, of the total $3,364,500 of
settled actions, 3 plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for
$27,500.  No money was paid by Universal in connection with any
settlement. Following these dismissed and settled actions there
exists 1 plaintiff that named Universal as of September 30, 2012.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of the
Universal Predecessor and the Company in these cases.

Based on advice of counsel, the Company believes that none of the
litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal
subsidiary through September 30, 2012 is material, and that the
only material litigation that was brought against the Universal
Predecessor through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith
Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-
04AS. The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
$3,250,000 ("Settlement") under an agreement reached in connection
with a $10,000,000 jury verdict that was rendered on August 5,
2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

The Company believes that Rhodes differed from the other lawsuits
in that plaintiff established that he contracted mesothelioma as a
result of his occupational exposure to asbestos dust and fibers
and that a predecessor of the Company was a major supplier of the
asbestos containing products that allegedly caused his disease.

CCOM Group, Inc., formerly Colonial Commercial Corp., operations
are conducted through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Universal
Supply Group, Inc. (Universal), The RAL Supply Group, Inc. (RAL),
and S&A Supply, Inc (S&A). The Company distributes heating,
ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and
accessories, climate controls systems, appliances, and plumbing
and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New
York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania,
Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends "Edwards" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon
Leroy Edwards, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Providence
County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other
defendants, including Andrea Electronics Corporation, alleging
that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested,
packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing
products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The
Company received service of process in April 2011. The Company has
retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the compliant.
The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit. Accordingly,
the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

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

Andrea Electronics Corporation designs, develops, and manufactures
microphone technologies and products for enhancing speech-based
applications software and communications primarily in computer and
business enterprise markets in the United States and
internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ecology and Environment Unit Faces Consent Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology and Environment, Inc.'s subsidiary has yet to respond to a
proposed Compliance Order on Consent relating to asbestos
remediation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2012.

On September 21, 2012 the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (the "Department") issued a proposed Compliance Order
on Consent (the "Consent Order") to the City and County of Denver
("Denver") and to Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers LLC
("Walsh Environmental").  Walsh Environmental is a majority-owned
subsidiary of Ecology and Environment, Inc.  The proposed Consent
Order concerns construction improvement activities of certain
property owned by Denver which was the subject of asbestos
remediation.  Denver had entered into a contract with Walsh
Environmental for Walsh Environmental to provide certain
environmental consulting services (asbestos monitoring services)
in connection with the asbestos containment and/or removal
performed by other contractors at Denver's real property.  The
Consent Order, among other provisions, proposes a violation
penalty of $216,000, jointly and severally to be paid by Denver
and Walsh Environmental.  Under Walsh's Environmental consulting
contract with Denver, Walsh Environmental has agreed to indemnify
Denver for certain liabilities which would include the imposition
of this proposed penalty.  Walsh Environmental has put its
professional liability carrier on notice of this claimed penalty.
At this time, neither Walsh Environmental nor Denver have filed a
response to the September 21, 2012 draft Consent Order.  It is the
position of Walsh Environmental that it has fully complied with
all applicable Colorado laws, regulations and statutes in
connection with its role as an environmental consultant to Denver
and the claimed violations are not applicable to the activities of
Walsh in connection with its environmental consulting contract
with Denver.  The Company believes that this administrative
proceeding involving Walsh Environmental will not have an adverse
material effect upon the operations of the Company.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., an environmental consulting firm,
provides professional services to the government and private
sectors worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covidien Unit Had 12,200 Cases at Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of September 28, 2012, there were approximately 12,200 asbestos
liability cases pending against Mallinckrodt, according to
Covidien Public Limited Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2012.

Mallinckrodt Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability
claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of
products incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases
allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were
exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case
typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to
Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for
personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure
to products containing asbestos.

Covidien Public Limited Company's involvement in asbestos cases
has been limited because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce
asbestos. The Company states: "Furthermore, in our experience, a
large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and
have been dismissed by the courts. We have not suffered an adverse
verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims,
and intend to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. When
appropriate, we settle claims; however, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of September
28, 2012, there were approximately 12,200 asbestos liability cases
pending against Mallinckrodt.

"We estimate pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred
but not reported, as well as related insurance recoveries. Our
estimate of our liability for pending and future claims is based
on claim experience over the past five years and covers claims
either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven
years. We believe that we have adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, we believe that the final outcome of all
known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued and insurance coverage, will not have a
material effect on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

Covidien Public Limited Company is engaged in the development,
manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use in clinical
and home settings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Still No Developments in "Scott" Suit vs. Chase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation states, in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2012: "We are one of over 100 defendants in a lawsuit
pending in Ohio which alleges personal injury from exposure to
asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The case is
captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T.
Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court of
Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The plaintiff in the case
issued discovery requests to us in August 2005, to which we timely
responded in September 2005. The trial had initially been
scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date had been
postponed and no new trial date has been set. As of October 2012,
there have been no new developments as this Ohio lawsuit has been
inactive with respect to us."

Chase Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in "Jansen" Suit vs. Chase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in an asbestos-related lawsuit against
Chase Corporation in Wisconsin, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We were named as one of the defendants in a
complaint filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois
Jansen, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
Thomas Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in the
Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court. The plaintiff alleges
that her husband suffered and died from malignant mesothelioma
resulting from exposure to asbestos in his workplace. The
plaintiff sued seven alleged manufacturers or distributors of
asbestos-containing products, including Royston Laboratories
(formerly an independent company and now a division of Chase
Corporation). The other defendants have each either settled or had
the complaint against them dismissed. We have filed an answer to
the claim denying the material allegations in the complaint. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery and motion practice."

Chase Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v St. Croix Renaissance Returns to State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle III of the United States District Court for
the District of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix,
remanded to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands an action
filed originally by 459 plaintiffs against St. Croix Renaissance
Group, L.L.L.P., asserting claims for personal injury and property
damage arising out of the alleged emission of hazardous materials
including bauxite residue (red mud and red dust), coal dust, and
friable asbestos from SCRG's property on St. Croix into the
adjoining neighborhoods over a period of years.  The Plaintiffs
allege that SCRG has maintained an abnormally dangerous condition,
that its conduct has constituted a public nuisance, a private
nuisance, and negligence, and that its actions have resulted in
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief are
sought.

SCRG timely removed the action to the District Court on the ground
that the action is a mass action for which diversity subject
matter jurisdiction exists under the Class Action Fairness Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.

In deciding against SCRG, Judge Bartle ruled that the Plaintiffs'
complaint does not qualify as a mass action under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I) because all the claims arise from an event
or occurrence, that is, the continuous release of toxic substances
from a single facility located in the Virgin Islands, where the
resulting injuries are confined to the Virgin Islands.

The case is ELEANOR ABRAHAM, et al., v. ST. CROIX RENAISSANCE
GROUP, L.L.L.P., Civil Action No. 12-11 (V.I.).  A copy of Judge
Bartle's Decision dated Dec. 7, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/vQA4lGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Crane Co.'s Summary Judgment Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Crane Co. seeking
to dismiss the asbestos-related personal injury action captioned
ROBERT ENGLE, SR. and LINDA ENGLE, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190172/11, Motion
Seq. No. 003 (N.Y.).  Judge Heitler determined that Mr. Engle's
testimony indicates that he may have been exposed to asbestos as a
bystander from asbestos-dust which emanated from valves, pumps,
and boilers being worked on by others.  While Judge Heitler
conceded that Mr. Engle himself did not specifically identify
Crane valves as a source of his exposure, Judge Heitler noted that
the blueprints submitted by plaintiffs show that Crane valves were
integrated into the ship's boiler room during its initial
construction.  In addition, while a construction took place a
decade before Mr. Engle began his U.S. Navy service, there is no
evidence to show that those valves were replaced prior to Mr.
Engle's Naval career, Judge Heitler also noted.

In light the documentary evidence produced in the case, coupled
with Mr. Engle's testimony, Judge Heitler found that there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence from which this defendant's
liability may be reasonably inferred.

A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision dated Dec. 10, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/w48SkXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro-AFMI Insurance Exclusion Ruling Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Phillips filed a lawsuit against Daniel G. Parmalle
arising out of damages Phillips sustained as a result of the
dispersal of asbestos in a 20-unit apartment building that he
purchased from Parmelle.  Phillips sought damages for breach of
contract/warranty, a violation of WIS. STAT. Secs. 895.446 and
943.20 (2009-10), negligence, and punitive damages.

Phillips, Perry A. Petta, and Walkers Point Marble Arcade, Inc.,
appeal a trial court's order granting declaratory and summary
judgment to American Family Mutual Insurance Company, an
intervening defendant that issued a business owner's policy to
Aquila Group, LLC, an entity owned by Parmelee.  Parmelee sold the
apartment building to Phillips that was covered by the American
Family policy.  Phillips submitted that the trial court correctly
determined that there was an initial grant of coverage, but erred
in its determination that the asbestos exclusion found in American
Family's policy negated any insurance coverage for the damages
sought in the lawsuit and relieved American Family of the duty to
defend.

In a decision dated Dec. 11, 2012, the Court of Appeals of
Wisconsin, District I, affirmed the trial court's decision and
concluded that there was an initial grant of coverage; however,
the asbestos exclusion applies.  The Court of Appeals noted that
the language of the insurance provided that the exclusion would
include property damage caused by the accidental dispersal or the
mere presence of asbestos.

The case is MICHAEL D. PHILLIPS, PERRY A. PETTA AND WALKERS POINT
MARBLE ARCADE, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DANIEL G. PARMELEE
AND AQUILA GROUP, LLC, DEFENDANTS, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERVENING DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, Appeal No.
2011AP2608 (Wis.).  A copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Py7Bmwfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Decision Favoring Abex Corp., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a
lower court's decision dismissing with prejudice Michael Gaskill's
complaint for personal injury, as a consequence of his pervasive
lies during discovery and his efforts to subvert the discovery
process.  Mr. Gaskill filed the complaint alleging that he
developed mesothelioma through the "inhalation and ingestion" of
asbestos dust and particles while working as a mechanic's helper
at "local auto body shops throughout Williamstown, New Jersey,"
and while assisting his grandfather in "extensive automotive
maintenance and repair work," beginning in the early 1980s.  The
13 named defendants were alleged to have marketed asbestos-
containing products for the automobile industry "which plaintiff
used or [to which he] was exposed."

As aptly observed by the lower court, the Plaintiff's deception
and lies about his work history have irretrievably obscured the
truth in the case, the Superior Court held.

The case is MICHAEL GASKILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABEX
CORPORATION, formerly American Brake and Shoe Company, HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. individually and as successor to Allied
Signal, Inc. and Aftermarket Brake and Friction Materials Division
of Bendix Corporation, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., and FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents, and AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
INC., BORG-WARNER CORPORATION c/o Burns International Services
Corporation; CHRYSLER CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, MARTIN CHRYSLER, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MFG. NORTH AMERICA, and QUALITY AUTO, as
successor in interest to Martin Auto Parts, Inc., Defendants, No.
A-4871-09T1 (N.J.).  A copy of the Decision dated Dec. 11, 2012,
is available at http://is.gd/sJlaGyfrom Leagle.com.

Mr. Gaskill is represented by:

         Arnold C. Lakind, Esq.
         SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, P.C.
         101 Grovers Mill Road, Suite 200
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
         Tel: (609) 275-0400
         Fax: (609) 275-4511

              - and -

         David M. Lipman, Esq.
         THE LIPMAN LAW FIRM
         5915 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 44
         Coral Gables, FL 33146
         Tel: (305) 662-2600
         Fax: (305) 667-3361

Pneumo Abex LLC, as successor in interest to Abex Corporation, is
represented by:

         Edward P. Abbot, Esq.
         SMITH ABBOT, LLP
         SMITH ABBOT, LLP
         90 Broad Street, 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Tel: (212) 981-4501
         Fax: (212) 981-4502
         Email: edabbot@smithabbot.com

Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a Allied Signal Inc., as
successor in interest to the Bendix Corporation, is represented
by:

         Ethan Stein, Esq.
         GIBBONS, P.C.
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-3701
         Tel: (212) 613-2041
         Fax: (212) 554-9677
         Email: EStein@gibbonslaw.com

Volkswagon of America, Inc., is represented by:

         Jose E. Gaitan, Esq.
         THE GAITAN GROUP
         3131 Elliott Avenue, Suite 700
         Seattle, WA 98121-1047
         Tel: (206) 346-6000

            -- and --

         Michael B. Sena, Esq.
         HERZFIELD & RUBIN, P.C.
         125 Broad Street
         New York, NY, 10004
         Tel: (212) 471-8527
         Fax: (212) 344-3333
         Email: MSena@herzfeld-rubin.com

Ford Motor Company is represented by:

         Richard P. Cambell, Esq.
         CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY
         One Constitution Center, 3rd Floor
         Boston, MA 02129
         Tel: (617) 241-3061
         Fax: (617) 241-5115
         Email: rpcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tokyo Court Excluded 150 Plaintiffs From Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Times relates that the Tokyo District Court has ordered
the state to award some JPY1.06 billion in compensation to 158
workers who suffered lung diseases such as lung cancer and
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos dust.  This is a
significant ruling in that it decided that the state's inadequate
regulations were responsible for the workers' sufferings.  Yet, it
is insufficient because the ruling did not award compensation to
about half of the plaintiffs.

The Nov. 5 ruling demonstrates that lawsuits are not an effective
mechanism to provide sufficient relief to workers who have
developed lung diseases through their exposure to asbestos dust.
The government, makers of construction materials and construction
contractors should heed the court's opinion expressed in its
ruling and jointly set up a fund to provide relief to such
workers.

The lawsuit was filed by 308 former construction workers in and
around Tokyo against the state and 42 construction material
makers.  They demanded payment of some JPY11.8 billion in
compensation.

The ruling said that in view of the spread of knowledge about the
health risks from exposure to asbestos dust, the government should
have ordered contractors to provide protective masks to workers
engaged in the work of spraying asbestos as of January 1974.  The
ruling also said that the government should have implemented the
same measure for workers handling materials containing asbestos
inside buildings as of January 1981.  The government prohibited
the use of asbestos in 2003 in principle and introduced a complete
ban in 2006.

In the case of workers engaged in asbestos spraying, the court
awarded compensation to those who did such work in and after 1974.
In the case of workers handling materials containing asbestos
inside buildings, the court awarded state compensation to those
who did such work in and after 1981.  Thus many workers were
excluded from state compensation.

The court also excluded self-employed subcontractors who engaged
in the same work from state compensation on the grounds that they
are not covered by the Industrial Safety and Health Law.  In view
of their working conditions, this court judgment is unreasonable.
The ruling also exempted construction material makers from
compensation responsibility.

The government and the Diet should heed the court's call for
taking legal steps to provide relief to workers who became ill
from handling asbestos.  The ruling also made it clear that if the
government had introduced strict regulations earlier to protect
workers, many of them would not have suffered from lung diseases.

Japan imported some 10 million tons of asbestos from 1950 to 2005
and most of it was used as construction material mainly during the
high economic growth period of the 1960s and 1970s.  As the
demolishment of buildings from this era will only increase from
now, the government and the construction industry must take
adequate measures to protect workers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poindexter Village Abatement Project Stopped
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ferenchik of The Columbus Dispatch reports that the Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Authority has stopped a contractor from
removing asbestos from windows at the shuttered Poindexter Village
public-housing complex after workers damaged brick while removing
windows and sills.

Community leaders thought the housing authority was starting to
demolish buildings before a required historic-review process was
complete.

But Bryan Brown, CMHA's senior vice president of business
development, said demolition has not begun.  Crews removed caulk
containing asbestos from around windows and began chipping away at
the surrounding brick because the caulk had seeped into the
mortar, Brown said.

Sills also were removed from four buildings.

"That was not what was supposed to have happened," Brown said.
The contractor needed to obtain CMHA's approval to chip away at
the bricks behind the window frames, he said.  The contractor was
supposed to remove the windows to take out the caulk, then put the
windows back in and board them up, he said.

CMHA plans to demolish all 35 of the brick buildings in the Near
East Side complex.  That plan has angered nearby residents and
others, because Poindexter Village is a cultural touchstone for
many in the city's black community.

A draft of a required review by the city's historic-preservation
office proposes studying 10 buildings for possible rehabilitation.

Randy Black, Columbus' historic-preservation officer, said he
takes Brown's explanation of what happened "at face value."  When
residents told him about the damage to the buildings, Black asked
Brown to stop the job.  He said Brown had offered to do so anyway.

Chief Baba Shongo, a member of the Poindexter Village History
Advisory Group and a former Poindexter Village resident, said
Brown is responsible if CMHA hired a contractor that made
mistakes.

"He's creating an eyesore, friction among the community," Shongo
said.  When he saw the damage, he "wanted to cry."

The Coalition for Responsible and Sustainable Development of the
Near East Side has proposed saving and redeveloping more historic
buildings through federal tax credits.  Jonathan Beard, a
coalition leader, said CMHA needs to rebuild trust with the
community.

"They have not earned the good will and credit to be able to
expect people to believe that it was a mistake," Beard said.
"That is unfortunate."

Brown said the windows, sills and damaged brick will not be
repaired because those buildings were not recommended for
preservation.

"We're going to tear them down," he said.

Asbestos removal is required whether the buildings are demolished
or preserved, he said, and CMHA "maintains the legal authority to
proceed with demolition at any time."

The owner of Watson General Contracting of Newark in Licking
County was out of town and unavailable to comment Dec. 26.

Poindexter Village, the city's first public-housing complex, was
dedicated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940.  It was
built on the site of the "Blackberry Patch," the African-American
neighborhood named for the fruit that grew in the area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Rideau Hall Attic Begins January
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Butler of The Ottawa Citizen reports that an attic in the
official residence of Canada's governor general is contaminated
with asbestos.  And it's not the only place the hazardous material
can be found in the building.

The National Capital Commission has invited tenders for the
removal of asbestos from the attic of Rideau Hall's 1867 wing.
Remedial work will begin in January and should be completed by the
end of March.

According to NCC spokesman Jean Wolff, the attic is unoccupied and
the asbestos is "stable and contained" and poses no risk to human
health.

It is being removed to prepare for future copper roofing work,
which would likely disturb the asbestos, Wolff said.  Because
asbestos poses a risk when airborne, it's necessary to remove it
before the roofing work takes place, he said.

The work is part of a multi-year program to remove "designated
substances," including asbestos, from the six official residences
under NCC management, Wolff said.

He said Governor General David Johnston is aware of the pending
work and will remain in residence during the removal work.
"Normal activities at Rideau Hall will be carrying on as
scheduled."

Because much of the attic work will take place directly over
residential areas, the NCC has reserved the right to order a work
stoppage when the residences are in use, and to instruct the
contractor to either work elsewhere or stop work entirely.

The work will be subject to daily "aggressive clearance air
monitoring" at the perimeter of the site, and a consultant will
have the power to order a work shutdown if it appears that a leak
might occur or has already occurred.

Rideau Hall began life as the residence of stonemason Thomas
McKay, a Scottish immigrant who helped build the Rideau Canal.
McKay built a stone villa on the site and lived there with his
family until 1855.

In 1865, architect Frederick Preston Rubidge designed additions
that expanded Rideau Hall to three or four times its original
size.  It became the official residence of the governor general in
1867.

According to the tender documents, chrysotile asbestos is in
insulation and plaster finishes at five sites in the attic of
those additions.  However, asbestos is present in other parts of
the building as well, Wolff said.

"In some cases, it has already been removed," he said.  "In other
cases, it's been encapsulated and sealed so as not to pose any
threat."  Asbestos in the same attic area was encapsulated and
sealed in 2010.

Wolff said the asbestos was added during 20th century renovations
and has been in place for many decades.  Asbestos has also been
found in insulation at 24 Sussex Dr., the residence of Prime
Minister Stephen Harper.  Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser
detailed the building's many problems in a 2008 report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Favors Illinois Central's Forum Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that a
Mississippi man's asbestos lawsuit should not be heard in St.
Clair County, the Illinois Supreme Court held Friday, Dec. 21.

Saying that "factors strongly favor dismissal in favor of a
Mississippi forum," the state high court, in a 5-1 ruling with one
justice not participating, reversed the lower courts' decision
that denied Illinois Central Railroad Co.'s forum non conveniens
motion.

Walter Fennell sued the railroad company in 2009, claiming he
developed respiratory problems after being exposed to asbestos and
other toxic substances during his career with Illinois Central.
He was one of 85 plaintiffs in a similar suit that was brought in
Mississippi and dismissed three years earlier.

In denying Illinois Central's forum motion, St. Clair County
Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto noted that the location of certain
evidence, as well as the area's interest in asbestos and a
relatively open trial docket, made St. Clair County a convenient
forum.

"Without belaboring the point, the circuit court failed to
recognize several private and public interest factors in its
analysis," Justice Charles Freeman wrote for the court.
"Accordingly, we remind our trial courts to include all of the
relevant private and public interest factors in their analyses."

Justices Rita Garman, Lloyd Karmeier, Ann Burke and Mary Jane
Theis made up the majority of the court.  Chief Justice Thomas
Kilbride dissented and Justice Robert Thomas did not participate
in the decision.

Pointing to Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, Freeman wrote that some of
the private interest factors courts should consider in a forum
analysis include the convenience of the parties, ease of access to
evidence, availability to secure attendance of witnesses and the
possibility of viewing the premises, among others.

Relevant public interest factors, he added, include
"administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in
congested venues instead of being handled in its origin; the
unfairness of imposing jury duty on residents of a community with
no connection to the litigation; and the interest in having local
controversies decided locally."

Freeman said an additional consideration in a forum analysis is
deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum, as well as the
general idea that courts don't favor forum shopping.

"Although these controlling legal principles are generally
recognized, each forum non conveniens case is unique and must be
considered on its own facts," Freeman wrote in the opinion.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in September,
attorneys representing Illinois Central urged the justices to
reverse the lower courts in favor of a Mississippi forum,
emphasizing that Fennell lived in that state and never alleged
that his injury occurred in St. Clair County.

Saying that St. Clair County is a more convenient forum, Fennell's
attorneys focused their argument on "voluminous evidence" stored
at the defendant's law firm in Belleville and the location of
certain witnesses.

Freeman wrote for the majority that, "[W]e recognize that the
location of documents, records and photographs has become a less
significant  factor in forum non conveniens analysis in the modern
age of Internet, email, telefax, copying  machines, and  world-
wide  delivery  services, since those items can now be easily
copied and sent."

"We conclude that the ease of accessing these documents does not
outweigh the substantial inconvenience of requiring distant
witnesses to travel to Illinois," he added.

In addition, Freeman wrote that the only connection Fennell's
lawsuit has to Illinois is that the parties' attorneys have
offices in St. Clair County and that certain documents are located
and one plaintiff's expert witness is also located there.

"This does not provide a significant factual connection with the
instant case to justify imposition of the burdens of the
litigation upon the citizens and court system of St. Clair County
and Illinois," he wrote.

After balancing all of the relevant factors and "granting far less
deference to plaintiff's chosen Illinois forum," Freeman said "it
is clear that those factors strongly favor dismissal in favor of a
Mississippi forum."

He explained that the deference of Fennell's choice of a St. Clair
County forum "is significantly lessened" because Illinois was his
second choice of a forum following his unsuccessful suit in
Mississippi.

Kilbride, however, wrote in his dissent that "Although the
plaintiff's residence and the site of the injury are not located
in Illinois, his choice of forum is, nevertheless, still entitled
to deference."

"After reviewing the relevant private and public interest factors,
I believe they are fairly evenly balanced.  At most, they may
slightly favor trial in Mississippi," he wrote.  "The defendant,
however, has not met its burden of showing those factors 'strongly
favor' the Mississippi forum."

Kenneth Halvachs -- khalvachs@boylebrasher.com -- an attorney with
Boyle Brasher in Belleville, represented Illinois Central in
arguments before the court.  He did not immediately return a
message seeking comment.

Chicago attorney J. Timothy Eaton -- teaton@shefskylaw.com --
argued on Fennell's behalf.  He said he was disappointed with the
ruling and not sure yet whether his client would further petition
the state high court.

"I believe the court was influenced by the fact this was the
plaintiff's second choice of forum," he said, referring to the
dismissed Mississippi suit.

Saying the opinion was directed solely to the facts of this case,
Eaton said "I do not think this changes forum non conveniens
analysis in Illinois."

The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel had urged the
court in a friend-of-the-court brief to provide some guidance "as
to the appropriate factors for the forum non conveniens analysis
and the weight to be afforded to these factors."

The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association advocated against adopting
a bright-line rule in its own brief to the court, saying there is
already a multi-factor test in place to analyze forum non
conveniens.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Case Due to Plaintiff's Lies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Bass of Legal Newsline reports that a New Jersey court has
affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss a case with
prejudice "as a consequence of plaintiff's pervasive lies" during
the discovery process.

Asbestos Tape Judges Carmen Messano, Joseph L. Yannotti, and John
C. Kennedy issued the per curiam opinion Dec. 11 for the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Plaintiff Michael Gaskill filed a complaint in the Law Division of
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, on March 6,
2008, alleging that he developed mesothelioma while doing
automobile repair in "local auto body shops" and while working
with his grandfather, beginning in the 1980's.

He named 13 defendants who were alleged to have marketed asbestos-
containing products for the automobile industry which he claimed
he had used or was exposed to while doing the auto repair work.

Gaskill stated in initial interrogatories that he had regularly
worked with neighborhood mechanics "repairing and replacing brakes
and clutches" between 1981 and 1991.  Gaskill was born in 1975.

He stated that he "believe[d] he worked with and around" brakes,
clutches, and gaskets that were manufactured and sold by the
various defendants and that he was exposed to asbestos during this
period.

In depositions, he stated "he had helped his uncle and cousin in
the construction of two homes in the 1990s, but denied otherwise
working 'on a construction or demolition work site.'"

Evidence was presented during the discovery process that revealed
that plaintiff had worked for TLB construction on "many occasions"
and that Gaskill had contacted employees of the company "over
twenty-five times both before and after their depositions in
November 2008."

Prior to this evidence being presented, Gaskill had "denied
speaking about the lawsuit with anyone other than his lawyers and
family," according to the opinion.

One witness, Michael Massaro, stated in an affidavit that he had
worked with Gaskill at Hahnel and Sons Construction for "four or
five years in the mid-1990s" and that he and Gaskill had at times
"removed asbestos roofs and asbestos siding without wearing
protective respirators."

"In a supplemental statement, Massaro stated he grew up with
plaintiff and never saw plaintiff undertake any automotive work,"
the opinion states.

Massaro also indicated in a statement that Gaskill began calling
him in December 2008 in an effort to get Massaro to testify that
he knew Gaskill had worked on cars.

"According to Massaro, plaintiff stated he was 'about to get rich'
and offered to fly Massaro and his family to Florida for a
vacation in which 'we would not want [for] anything.'"

In later depositions, Gaskill admitted to lying about some of the
aforementioned facts as well as others.

In December 2009, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
Gaskill's complaint on the ground that he had perpetrated a fraud
on the court.  They asked the complaint be dismissed "with
prejudice" so that Gaskill would be barred from bringing suit
against them again.

"At this point, the truth is a question mark, and this Court does
not know how to now undo the web of lies and half-truths from the
truth," wrote Judge Ann G. McCormick in dismissing the complaint
with prejudice.

Gaskill appealed claiming that McCormick erred "based on specious
allegations of witness tampering and plaintiff's failure to
disclose inconsequential evidence."

The Appellate Court confirmed McCormick' decision "essentially for
the reasons expressed . . . in her thorough opinions from the
bench."

"In this case, plaintiff's deliberate concealment and outright
lies during the discovery process richly warrant imposition of the
ultimate sanction of dismissal of his complaint with prejudice.

"Further, plaintiff has engaged in a pattern and practice of bad
faith and lack of candor as well as submitting falsified material
to the Court.  His deceptions commenced with his first discovery
responses and continued to the eve of trial.  Hence, this factor
favors dismissal with prejudice.

"It is na‹ve to suggest, as plaintiff has in his brief, that he
has admitted his lies and will not lie again.  His deceptions and
lies pierce the heart of his cause of action.  Consequently, Judge
McCormick properly exercised her discretion in dismissing
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice."


                           *********

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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *